Quake Watch 2013

reply to post by BO XIAN


If you can understand the shorthand. I think they are both guilty of quake snobbery.

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


I don't see it as quake snobbery at all.

They have lives. To repeatedly explain every shorthand term, label, an acronym . . . would delay a lot of their work a LOT, I'd think.

If I need something explained, I look it up or ask them. They are more than quite accommodating.

To me, they go to great lengths helping the average layman understand what's going on and what they are trying to present and explain.

I think that as purportedly educated laymen . . . the average reader has some responsibility to bring some awareness, self-informed-ness etc. to the table. I think it would be an unreasonable burden on their generous tasks on this thread to expect them to make things abundantly clear to every educational and IQ level.

They do close enough to that, as it is. Well above average, imho.

reply to post by BO XIAN

That may be but a lot of people see their acronyms and leave the thread. Then theres the graphs!
I admit people should take an interest however theres nothing worse than graphs and acronyms for disuading people in doing so.

symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

That may be but a lot of people see their acronyms and leave the thread.

That's probably true for some percentage of readers. It would be interesting to know how many/what percentage.

(edited):

Then there's the graphs!
I admit people should take an interest however there's nothing worse than graphs and acronyms for dissuading people in doing so.

I don't begin to understand the graphs well. I can discern the larger, more dramatic quake squiggles but I certainly don't have a clue as to what the finer points of such graphs indicate. I depend on Muzzy and Quake-surfer Puterman to alert me to any great curiosity, significance etc. in such graphs. And, they seem to fairly faithfully do so.

I see their posting of such as primarily for those who are up to interpreting them or following Muzzy and Puterman's lead in the discussion of them. I don't feel greatly left out about it. If I wanted to be at that level, I'd dog them more relentlessly to teach me to that level or I'd take a class at the local community college until I understood such better.

For me, the primary value in their hard work on the thread are the findings, curiosities, speculations etc. that they write about rather clearly, imho. . . . and the fact that they alert us all to significant quake goings on wherever . . . and whatever anomalies may be accompanying such quakes or swarms or fore-shocks or aftershocks.

I think they do the work of several people already. I have no need to tax them further beyond what I already do . . . whether from my ignorance or my insatiable curiosity.

Thx for your kind replies.

reply to post by BO XIAN

I agree with you and i love pt man and mzzy. Infact i have prepared a bar chart on my fondness.

I suppose when quakes occur its a blessing having real experts around and on a.ts.
Dont thank me,
I blush
Regards bo

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


what graphs?

reply to post by muzzy


Muzzy, if you are still counting votes, I much prefer the scaled bubbles. I think it makes it easier to visualize/imagine the areas of rock under the most strain, or where stresses have transferred to after a large quake.

reply to post by BO XIAN

And Muzzy and Puterman . . . quake jockey's extraordinaire . . . do quite well without my blather distracting from their great work. LOL.

Nice of you to say so BO however the thread has little benefit to others if it is only Muzzy and I rattling our cages with Olivine giving hers a goods shake from time to time as well. The thread needs the opinions and input from others as well.

I will expand this to include other posts on this particular subject and try and explain form my point of view at least. Please be assured before we start I am not taking offence at anything that has been said.

@symptomoftheuniverse

If you can understand the shorthand. I think they are both guilty of quake snobbery.

I understand what you are saying but aside from BO's excellent reply to your remark I would say in my defence that it is easy to forget that not everyone has the same level of knowledge, and this is intended to be a technical thread about quakes. People can come here to learn, and on my own blog(s), if you reference the links in my signature, you will find links to much information about earthquakes to aid understanding. For the forgetting part I apologise.

@symptomoftheuniverse

That may be but a lot of people see their acronyms and leave the thread. Then theres the graphs!
I admit people should take an interest however theres nothing worse than graphs and acronyms for disuading people in doing so.

I am not sure that could be quantified, except perhaps that some come on and then do not appear again. I have no idea if they vanish into cyberspace or just from this thread however, graphs.......!

Now I may be completely at odds with everyone else in the Universe but to me a picture speaks a thousand words.

The reason I use graphs is because they convey information in a manner more likely to generate comprehension. If this was not the case then business presentations would be very dull affairs. I do however understand that some may find lists easier to take in. We are not all the same thank goodness. If at any time any one wants the list that goes with a graph they have only to ask, but for the time being, unless the general consensus is that lists are better, I shall continue to use charts and graphs.

As far as other charts such as seismograms go I am afraid people just need to learn. There is little that any of us so called experts can do to change the format of such images, but we can teach others to interpret them. People will find lots of information here to help them and many links to other sites. In particular the pages I have put together on understanding seismograms and earthquakes will help I hope.

Finally if I may say this:

The reason I stay involved in this thread, and indeed a good part of the reason I joined in the first place, is because it is my mission to to impart such little understanding as I have to others in order to equip people with sufficient knowledge to rebuff scaremongers.

Yes earthquakes are/can be dangerous, but it appals me that certain unscrupulous people play on the fears of others for profit or some twisted pleasure.

As I have said before, apart from a distant rumble from a Mag 4 off the coast of Ireland, I have never experienced an earthquake..........Everything I do, I do it for you.

reply to post by Olivine


Moi aussi, I like ze scaled bubbles Monsieur (ETA Monsieur Muzzy I mean by that). I think they are easier to visualise........but then I like visualising things I guess.......

reply to post by PuterMan


THX for your kind words, as usual.

I like visualizations TONS AND TONS.

Even when I don't fully GROK them, I still get some increased understanding from them.

I greatly appreciate all you and muzzy do. I feel more platonic affection for both of you than you could likely stand. LOL.

I greatly appreciate that you help keep me and my END TIMES perspective grounded in more . . . what . . . verifiable, hard info reality. Probably you help keep my "scaremongering" at a minimum.

I have the fantasy that MAYBE I challenge you to keep looking and thinking 'outside the box.'

LUB

Yes the voting about the standard/scaled icons ( bubbles/marble/orbs/balls ...whatever you want to call them) on the maps is still open.
At this point the votes are
Standard 3
Scaled 2

there are about 12 regulars on this thread, so the voting is about on par with political elections ..... 42% turnout.

politicians get elected based on less %

thanks, please feel free to vote if you haven't already, the poll is still open

If scaled icons wins, then I may try and increase the size of the smaller ones a little, but you can't increase the big ones beyond 32x32 pixels, that is the default on Google Maps.

reply to post by muzzy


My default position tends to be the maximum number of options possible is great.

Same with the bubbles . . . I like the range from small to large selectable.

Probably small affords the clearer 3D view in most cases.

reply to post by BO XIAN

I think you are talking about IEB (Iris Earthquake Browser) and 3DV (3 Dimensional Viewer) there?, I don't have that luxury of offering the two different size options on my blog maps, its all dependant on Google Maps there. I can do static images of the maps with all kinds of sizes using GPS Viualizer but they are not interactive. Thats what you get for free.

here are a couple of graphs especially for symptomoftheuniverse

these show the number of quakes per day for New Zealand and the Kermadec Islands, the left one colour coded to show the total number of each magnitude, each column represents the total for the 24hr period.
The right hand graph show the energy released (Tons of TNT) by those quakes combined, the formula is =(10^(4.8+($e2*1.5))/4184)/10^6 , where e =the M or magnitude of each event. The total of the TTNT for each day is added together to give the figures on the columns.
If you look at both columns together, back and forth you can see the TTNT energy released matches up with the M5 events

The purpose of the graphs is to back up the claim that when the TTNT energy released per day falls below 10TTNT there will be a M5+ earthquake within the region within 1-5 days.
It may seem right now that its pretty obvious that there is a M5 once a week, but this is not always the case as can be seen on the page which contains the archive of these graphs here.
So far the theory works out more than 80% of the time.

As far as I can see this is probably the best % result for reliability on earthquake prediction that there has ever been anywhere, and it developed here on ATS.

I don't see whats too hard to understand about the graphs, maybe symptomoftheuniverse should take a little time and use Google or Wiki search to check things out, like the acronyms, rather than depend on others doing the understanding for him/her.
I see SOTU (symptomoftheuniverse) location is "shightcreek", that terminology shows you are a POME (Prisoner of Mother England), typical moaning POM. (the Kiwis and Aussies will know what I mean).
P'man the exception to this, he escaped to Ireland


edit: Oh BTW, M5 due within 1-5 days based on that latest graph

reply to post by muzzy


Guess I'd vote for the smaller, then.

Thx thx.

reply to post by muzzy



Sooooooooo if I read your right graph right . . . it appears that several days, the energy released was ABOVE 100T TTNT? . . . maybe I have too many "T's" in there. I don't recall if it's 100 thousand tons of TNT or 100 tons. LOL.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Thanks, level peggng now then, 3-3

reply to post by BO XIAN


On 11th Oct the energy released was equal to 42,980 TTNT (Tons of TNT), if you look over to the left graph on the 11th you see there was a M6 on that day (was at the Kermadecs), if you go to the 11th Oct map and zoom out you can see it there too. 6.3ML, Energy Released: 42,501.898 tonnes of TNT.
Its all meant to match together.
The days with over 1000 TTNT usually match with M5+'s

reply to post by muzzy



THX THX for the clarifying elaboration.

Good work, as always.

muzzy
Yes the voting about the standard/scaled icons ( bubbles/marble/orbs/balls ...whatever you want to call them) on the maps is still open.
At this point the votes are
Standard 3
Scaled 2

there are about 12 regulars on this thread, so the voting is about on par with political elections ..... 42% turnout.

politicians get elected based on less %

thanks, please feel free to vote if you haven't already, the poll is still open

If scaled icons wins, then I may try and increase the size of the smaller ones a little, but you can't increase the big ones beyond 32x32 pixels, that is the default on Google Maps.

edit on 10u30030013 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

Bubbles for me........Keep up the good work!!

2nd.