ROFL..Stan Deyo...complete fraud and clown.
I'm truly sorry for anyone gullible enough to believe his claims of "successful" earthquake prediction.
People seem to be uniquely susceptible to utter BS when it comes to earthquakes..perhaps only surpassed by "alternative" health quackery.
Deyo basically carpet-bombs the earth with vast areas of vague forecasts day after day (especially making sure that basically every plate boundary is covered with a forecast) such that he can claim a successful prediction for any notable quake.
And that isn't even getting into the area of his methodology being utter nonsense.
ALL VALID QUAKE PREDICTIONS MUST HAVE THESE FOUR COMPONENTS:
1) A SPECIFIC time frame for the forecast (beginning hour/day ending hour/day)
2) A SPECIFIC magnitude range (e.g. between magnitude 5 and magnitude 7)
3) A SPECIFIC land area (either a "box" of latitude/longitude, or a radius around a specific point, that is "within 100 miles of LA City Hall" for example.)
4) Perhaps most importantly, a forecaster needs to calculate HIMSELF the probability he'll have a successful forecast by "dumb luck." This requires work, looking at quake catalogs, but other people shouldn't have to do his work for him.
For example, a forecast of "A magnitude 2.0 or higher quake within 200 miles of LA City Hall from midnight Pacific time 4/19 to midnight 4/26" is a completely worthless forecast, because there's such a quake EVERY week.
Any forecast not containing the above elements is worthless and should be ignored. The main way the uneducated get snowed by bogus quake predictors like Deyo and Berkland is them not understanding the truly huge number of earthquakes that occur on a regular basis, and not understanding statistics...bogus quake predictors make a LOT of VAGUE predictions, and then highlight the significant quakes that end up easily falling into their forecasts,and ignore the others.
Kind of the sort of thing I expected you to say but wanted to see what form you'd put it in and how strong you'd make it.
Interesting.
You seem to ignore his making an emphasis of the temperature differential and to pretend that he is more generic and covers more turf of potential quakes than he does. And, usually he doesn't have time to make a prediction much at all.
He just takes the temp data from NOAA, affixes the colored circles to the areas of significant differential and lets it go at that. The white circles signify the greatest temperature diffrential. And those areas are usually no more than a handful on any given day. And, they are far less than the potential areas for quakes.
I think your broadside is not quite accurate to the facts on his map.
It sometimes appears that the only person you do NOT think is a fraud and a clown in the field is . . .
00:01 5/10/06 to 24:59 5/20/06
2) A SPECIFIC magnitude range (e.g. between magnitude 5 and magnitude 7)
7.9 ±0.5
3) A SPECIFIC land area (either a "box" of latitude/longitude, or a radius around a specific point, that is "within 100 miles of LA City Hall" for example.)
Within 100 miles of New Madrid, MO
4) Perhaps most importantly, a forecaster needs to calculate HIMSELF the probability he'll have a successful forecast by "dumb luck." This requires work, looking at quake catalogs, but other people shouldn't have to do his work for him.
Hmmmmm, last major quake 1812, call it about 70,000 days ago, 10 day window, unknown interval between the 1811/1812 cluster and previous 'quakes.
Call it 1:10,000?
Happy now?