Space weather...

[mashman]

Here's the linky (again )

As for the rest. I don't wholly disagree with what you've said, and your analogy still sucks and I got it the first time , I was just being a twit... I'm not sure if "space weather" was ever considered as a factor in Earthquake correlation and cause, it may have been such a young Science that it was either never considered or the data just wasn't available, dunno... but with Scientists being such an inquisitive lot, I would imagine that somewhere along the lines "space weather" was binned as a theory, potentially by a very well respected and learned scientist in the field... again, dunno. Even though scientists put their time and sanity into their Science, the funding comes from elsewhere and that elsewhere generally gets to decide what direction that "science" goes in... Just ask the AGW guys . @seminal celebration... bunch of wankers

[shrub]

Even though scientists put their time and sanity into their Science, the funding comes from elsewhere and that elsewhere generally gets to decide what direction that "science" goes in... Just ask the AGW guys . @seminal celebration... bunch of wankers

Having applied for research funding, admittedly not a hell of a lot, there isn't a lot of weight attached to the area you're planning to research. The funders are more interested in how you're going to do things than what you're doing or who will benefit/be impacted.

As for climate change, the only people who have to produce research that fits a mould or follows a predetermined path with an expected outcome are the deniers because the groups that fund them are in turn funded and/or controlled by energy interests, conservative political bodies or fundamentalist christians. And given that there is no evidence supporting their position and almost all of what they come up with is the same old bollocks repeated ad nauseum or simply spin, a genuinely curious scientist is unlikely to get enthusiastic about working in that field any more. Kind of like trying to recruit scientists to research the sun rotating round the earth or engineers to design a superbike with a sidevalve engine, hand shifter and girder forks.

[shrub]

Here's the linky (again )

Thank you for that, and interesting site and yes, he does claim quite stunning accuracy - in predicting minor quakes. He predicted a quake around the 22nd of Feb of M2.9 - M4.9. I'm assuming M stands for magnitude, and that he is using the Richter scale. If so, there are around 30,000 quakes every year that fit that range, and given the Sept quake and constant aftershocks, that's pretty easy to get right. In fact I will use my Plastic Jesus method to predict a 3.0 - 4.0 quake within the next 24 hours. Check Geonet, and if I'm wrong I'll shout you a beer. Only problem the quake was a 6.3 on the Richter and around a 9 on the MM.

And it's interesting that he doesn't explain his methodology. He has all these predictions that "have a strong scientific physical basis and are derived through unique mathematical modeling which took some four years to develop and is the intellectual property of Dr Reg Roberts", yet won't even outline his methodology. Very unusual for an academic, especially one who has developed a "unique mathematical modelling".

So I did a little checking on the good Dr. RJ Roberts PhD. I couldn't find him on Google or Google Scholar, so I looked through the various databases of academic journals I have access to, and I drew a blank on anything to do with earthquakes, mathematics, geology or even astronomy. I widened my search to include ALL academic journals and the good Doctor is notable by his absence. In other words he hasn't published ANYTHING, including a doctoral thesis.

So we have an unknown scholar who is predicting stuff that happens all the time and won't disclose how he predicts this stuff. Forgive my scepticism, but I don't think I'll be taking him all that seriously.

[shrub]

On his website I found this:

"Reg Roberts holds a PhD in Entomology from the University of Illinois (1962) and a D.I.C. (Diploma of Imperial College, London (1972). Before his retirement he was a Principal Research Scientist in CSIRO Australia where he studied the population dynamics of pasture insects. Reg is an expert on pattern recognition."

So he's a long-retired insect scientist. Maybe he uses earthworm farts to predict quakes?

[oneofsix]

On his website I found this:

"Reg Roberts holds a PhD in Entomology from the University of Illinois (1962) and a D.I.C. (Diploma of Imperial College, London (1972). Before his retirement he was a Principal Research Scientist in CSIRO Australia where he studied the population dynamics of pasture insects. Reg is an expert on pattern recognition."

So he's a long-retired insect scientist. Maybe he uses earthworm farts to predict quakes?

cheap dig so beneath you. I think the point is meant to be the sentence "Reg is an expert on pattern recognition"

[shrub]

cheap dig so beneath you. I think the point is meant to be the sentence "Reg is an expert on pattern recognition"

maybe I should have been a little more charitable towards dear old Reg. Being able to recognise and analyse patterns is pretty central to damn near every field of research, hell, even I have expertise in and use pattern recognition to analyse data and I work in the social sciences.

[mashman]

So we have an unknown scholar who is predicting stuff that happens all the time and won't disclose how he predicts this stuff. Forgive my scepticism, but I don't think I'll be taking him all that seriously.

and yet he's still making relatively accurate predictions across the ENTIRE globe. Where are the experts predictions, warnings, utterings? Nowhere to be seen, so he must have just been getting lucky since 2009 ... And as for not taking him seriously becuase he isn't an expert, i'm dissapointed, because if you think like that, then real scientists will too (cheap, but for smile value, not a jibe at you shrub)...

So he's a long-retired insect scientist. Maybe he uses earthworm farts to predict quakes?

and yet the experts can't, or won't predict quakes... classic... what did Einstein do for a living? ... if that's indicative of the attitude of the scientific community, then it's no more than science snobbery

[imdying]

and yet the experts can't, or won't predict quakes... classic... what did Einstein do for a living? ... if that's indicative of the attitude of the scientific community, then it's no more than science snobbery

They also can't travel through time, or faster than light, or make crops impervious to insects... wow, all that fail

[mashman]

O M G......... after all this time too

[oneofsix]

They also can't travel through time, or faster than light, or make crops impervious to insects... wow, all that fail

A cure for the common cold would be nice

[shrub]

and yet he's still making relatively accurate predictions across the ENTIRE globe. Where are the experts predictions, warnings, utterings? Nowhere to be seen, so he must have just been getting lucky since 2009 :

I haven't bothered to look at his predictions outside of NZ because i haven't got the time to see how accurate he is elsewhere, but let's look at a few of the quakes he seems to have missed:
M5.0 Rotorua, Mar 15, 2009
M5.1 Rotorua, Jun 18 2009
M7.1 Darfield, Sept -4 2010 (I personally remember that one)
M6.3 Christchurch 22 Feb.

If you look at his website, he claims to have predicted a few small shakes within a radius of 400 - 500 kms! For Christchurch that pretty much includes all the South Island and given we're a seismically active country and quakes like that happen 30,000 times a year it's kind of like me saying "I predict that it will rain in March". He has only "predicted" a very, very small number of the quakes we have experienced and none of the serious ones so what earthly use is his data?

And he makes all kinds of claims with no way of validating them beyond hours of sifting through historic data. It's like me saying "97% of female lingerie models aged between 22 and 30 wish they could sleep with Shrub and of them 68% fantasize about having a threesome with Shrub and another woman".

[mashman]

I haven't bothered to look at his predictions outside of NZ because i haven't got the time to see how accurate he is elsewhere, but let's look at a few of the quakes he seems to have missed:
M5.0 Rotorua, Mar 15, 2009
M5.1 Rotorua, Jun 18 2009
M7.1 Darfield, Sept -4 2010 (I personally remember that one)
M6.3 Christchurch 22 Feb.

If you look at his website, he claims to have predicted a few small shakes within a radius of 400 - 500 kms! For Christchurch that pretty much includes all the South Island and given we're a seismically active country and quakes like that happen 30,000 times a year it's kind of like me saying "I predict that it will rain in March". He has only "predicted" a very, very small number of the quakes we have experienced and none of the serious ones so what earthly use is his data?

And he makes all kinds of claims with no way of validating them beyond hours of sifting through historic data. It's like me saying "97% of female lingerie models aged between 22 and 30 wish they could sleep with Shrub and of them 68% fantasize about having a threesome with Shrub and another woman".

and the weatherman gets the swell height wrong every day, and plenty of times it rains at my place when it's supposed to be sunny, not to mention constantly getting the temperature wrong too... but they don't use any form of accepted science to predict those things do they

[shrub]

and the weatherman gets the swell height wrong every day, and plenty of times it rains at my place when it's supposed to be sunny, not to mention constantly getting the temperature wrong too... but they don't use any form of accepted science to predict those things do they

So what you're saying is it really doesn't matter how many major quakes dear old Reg missed because he got a few of the minor ones and weather is notoriously hard to predict?

BTW I pay about as much attention to weather forcasts as I do to politicians promises.

[mashman]

So what you're saying is it really doesn't matter how many major quakes dear old Reg missed because he got a few of the minor ones and weather is notoriously hard to predict?

BTW I pay about as much attention to weather forcasts as I do to politicians promises.

I'm saying that there may well be something in the worm fart theory that warrants a MUCH closer look, potentially something that has already been dismissed... especially as the worm fart guy isn't a recognised geologist, meteorologist, physicist etc...

BTW, I started my working career as a fisherman, the weather prediction is kinda important, especially when its wrong on the wrong side of wrong , that kinda kills people. Politicians they keep most of the minor problems and just break there major ones... damn that sounds almost familiar

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Not quite, before a theory sees the light of day it gets challenged from every possible angle. It's part of the peer review process where you have a heap of people who work in your area look for weaknesses in your argument and test you. And often they are pissed off that you have found something they wanted to find, don't like you, don't like who you work for or even simply feel like being obstreporous so will look for every possible flaw and exaggerate anything they don't like to the point where having a sample of 999 is seen as negating your findings because the sample should have been 1000.

Yes I know what you are saying, however when we start making better and more powerfull computers, telescopses, Microscopes, instruments and satelites many of the scientific theories out there will change to suit there new findings... Most are fact until prooven wrong like Big Bang Theory...well they now believe there was multiple bangs and that the still happen in the ever expanding universe.

Remember the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves aound the Earth and that the Earth is the centre of the universe... all seemed logical at the time with the tools, eviedence they had and knowledge obtained untill the telescope was invented... and oh bugger things looked different...

At the end of the day science is only knowledge that we (as a collective) have discovered thus far, it doesn't mean that it is all or that it is correct it is only based on the obtainable eviedence with the tools and equipment at hand and if you haven't got all the eviedence then ithe theory could be wrong (could also be 100% correct too) and a lot is only theory. Whilst the out come will be prodded and poked at looking for holes they are only using the knowledge they have obtained as well...



http://www.southernrider.co.nz/forum...t=light#p41803