Show Posts
Review of "Climate Change - Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles"
Re-published with permission of stalemateNZ
I heard about Martin Armstrong's economic model a while ago and was skeptical, however I did not have the background or time to really look into it. However, I came across his article about predicting earthquakes at:
Climate Change - Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles
I am professionally a scientific researcher with a PhD in geology. My area of expertise is in tectonics and structural geology. So when I saw Martin Armstrong claiming to use his model to predict earthquakes I couldn't help but see if what he was saying was true. Below is my review on his article, I respond point-by-point to his claims:
Martin Armstrong:
I cannot confirm or deny that the cause of the 32-year cycle is the slowing of the Earth's rotation because there are other correlations that need to be addressed. I did confirm that my own research agreed that there is a 31.4-year cycle of intensity in earthquakes.
Response:
So this Bendick & Bilham (2017) paper claims that there is a cycle of 32.4 - 2 years and conclude ?Global seismic synchronization has no utility for the precise prediction (in a strict sense) of specific damaging earthquakes, but these results do imply that the probability of events is time dependent. Thus, earthquakes with a certain renewal interval are more likely to occur when similar renewal interval earthquakes have recently occurred, or at times corresponding to maxima in Earth's rotational deceleration or acceleration.?
Because the cycle is so weak, it hasn't been successfully used to predict earthquakes. Also, they do not mention the sun's activity in this paper at all, and that it is the earths rotational speed changing that is causing this cycle.
Bendick & Bilham (2017) was cited in the paper I attached (Hough 2018 ), and they conclude:
The simple tests presented in this report confirm what seismologists have long taken for granted, that there is no evidence that large earthquake rates are modulated significantly by the position of the Earth relative to either the Moon or the Sun. If there is any modulation of large earthquake occurrence, it is either well below the level that can be detected with the present catalog or gives rise to effects that are far more complex than a global clustering through either the calendar year or the lunar month. A low level of modulation would be of no practical use for earthquake prediction. The tests illustrate once again how apparent clustering and anticlustering arise commonly in random catalogs, potentially fueling enduring earthquake myths.
Martin Armstrong:
As far back as 1967, a study was published with the Earth and Planetary Science Letters which found solar activity plays a significant role in triggering earthquakes.
Response:
The study Martin Armstrong mentions also says ?the precise mechanism by which this is accomplished is less clear?. The paper does claim it as a prediction tool, but 50 years has gone by and still it hasn't been used to predict earthquakes. Also, plate tectonics wasn't generally accepted until the 1970s, which was a paradigm shift in geology, and has provided the driving mechanism for earthquakes. He says ?as far back?, as if this is well supported science, but in reality he has only managed to find one study from 1967 that suits his interpretation. I looked, there are no papers saying the sun is causing earthquakes (I admit I did not do an exhaustive literature review). However, Martin Armstrong's view is not well established, and therefore he needs to provide very good evidence before he passes it off as fact.
Martin Armstrong:
Later, in 1998 a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes. Then in 2007, Yin ZhiQiang, Ma LiHua, and Han YanBen conducted a study which produced results showing that the lengths and amplitudes of the periods have changed with time, and large variations have taken place during some periods. (Source: Chinese Science Bulletin).
Review:
First, he doesn't provide the study where they found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes.
Second, the study (ZhiQiang et al. 2007) only talks about measuring past solar activity by analyzing tree rings. They do not make any link or conclusion about how the sun causes earthquakes/volcanoes. In addition, the way Martin Armstrong has written that paragraph is very misleading, as it implies a connection between the first (uncited) study with that of the second ZhiQiang et al. (2007) study, when even the authors made no such connection.
Martin Armstrong:
?Another recent research study carried by The Space and Science Research Center in Florida, US, showed a strong correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental United States and other regions around the world. The study looked at the data of volcanic activity between (1650 ? 2009) and seismic (earthquakes) activity between (1700 ? 2009) and then the recorded data was compared with the sunspots record (solar activity).
The results of this study exposed a very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events, within the continental US as well as globally. The correlation for volcanic activity was greater than 80% (discuss in a separate post) and for the largest earthquakes was came out with a 100% correlation with the top 7 most powerful quakes versus solar activity lows.?
Review:
No studies cited? Cannot comment without access to the studies. I would also urge anyone not to blindly accept Martin Armstrong's claims as facts without seeing the studies.
Martin Armstrong:
NASA also published a study showing that there can be lesser quakes in the 5.1 range that are shallow ground movements reflecting the strain accumulated on deeper faults, which remain locked and may be capable of producing future earthquakes in the 7.0+ magnitude range in Los Angeles.
When we ran our weather models on a correlation with California earthquakes, it revealed a cycle of drought followed by flooding, which then undermines the structure and precedes earthquakes.
NASA published a study showing that indeed the drought in California was causing the land to actually sink. They reported that groundwater levels have fallen 100 feet already.
Review:
What is he talking about here? I don't understand at all. His first sentence seems to accurately summarize the NASA study. Which says when many small quakes occur at shallow levels in an area the stress then transfers to deeper faults, stress builds up, and a large deep quake happens.
His second sentence then talks about how in California there is a cycle of drought then flooding. Ok, so I have to take his word that his model does that, as he has no more info. Also, it isn't exactly ground breaking to say that floods follow droughts. He then claims that the flooding/drought cycle ?then undermines the structure and precedes earthquakes?. This sentence doesn't make sense. I assume he is saying that the weather events are causing the earthquakes. However, he provides absolutely zero evidence to support this claim.
Third sentence, the study actually says the land subsided because of ?extensive groundwater pumping?, which has been occurring for years. Sure, it is related to the long droughts because people need to pump to get water, which is indirectly related to the sun driving weather. However, it isn't a natural cycle. It also isn't related to electrical disturbances in the atmosphere caused by the sun. The land sinking is because humans are removing water from the ground, and the earth then subsides. Finally, there is no mention in that study that this is triggering earthquakes. A link that Martin Armstrong is claiming, and he is providing these studies as if they support his interpretation, which they do not at all.
In three sentences, Martin Armstrong talks about three separate things, 1) study about earthquake types, 2) his weather model, and 3) land subsidence, and then he casually links them all together without providing any evidence. Then he concludes that his weather model is predicting earthquakes. What is the point of this paragraph other than to confuse the reader?
Martin Armstrong:
In 2008 researchers, NASA announced that their scientists stand on the verge of a major breakthrough in their efforts to forecast earthquakes. They reported that they have found a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below. They observed this correlation days before the recent 8.0 devastating earthquake in China which struct on May 12th, 2008 (2008.361) known as the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. While there were a lot of quakes 309.6 years prior in 1698, there were not 8.0 quakes. There was an 8.0 quake known as the 1679 Sanhe-Pinggu earthquake, which was about 56Km from Beijing. If we look at the 224-year frequency, we again come close to the 1786 Kangding-Luding earthquake, which was a 7.7 quake. The 51.6-year frequency also produced two quakes in 1955 that were 7.1 1955 Kangding earthquake and a 6.8 quake known as the 1955 Yuzha earthquake.
Review:
Martin Armstrong writes, ?While there were a lot of quakes 309.6 years prior in 1698, there were not 8.0 quakes?. Is he having a laugh here? His claim that no 8.0 magnitude earthquakes had occurred is complete nonsense, he cannot know that this is true at at all, earthquakes were not being monitored back then (and also he doesn't provide any data). The USA had not even been founded in 1698, the first World-Wide Standardized Seismograph Network was only established in the 1960s. This was 260 years later!
What does he mean about the 224-yr frequency predicting the 1786 earthquake? Is it meant to be 224 yrs from the 1679 earthquake? But that is only 107 years? Where is the 51.6 frequency coming from? His model? Does he show that anywhere? Is he looking at all earthquakes or just cherry picking ones that fit his cycle? He provides no evidence, and does not explain what he is talking about. It appears as if Martin Armstrong is attempting to overload the reader with a bunch of unexplained numbers to confuse them into thinking he is backing his claims with data. I am skeptical, and would like to see a graph of all major earthquakes and his cycle together. Why does he expect me to blindly believe him, if he could easily provide that proof?
Also, this was a BBC article, not a published study. Martin Armstrong doesn't even link to the original BBC article, but to another third-party website that links to it. In that article the NASA scientist said:
?I do believe that we will be able to establish a clear correlation between certain earthquakes and certain pre-earthquake signals, in an unbiased way.?[?] He added: ?I am cautiously optimistic that we have good scientific data, and we are designing a series of experiments to verify our data.?
That was in 2008, there is still no published studies to date that provides a clear correlation. Martin Armstrong using an article that quotes a scientist who believes that they will be able to do something in the future is not evidence! Currently, these interpretations are not supported by the data. Additionally, Martin Armstrong made it sound like they had provided proof that electrical disturbances in the atmosphere were linked to earthquakes, when they still have not published this conclusion. Also, NASA made no mention about the sun's role in this, they specifically say ?when rocks are compressed - as when tectonic plates shift - they act like batteries, producing electric currents.? So if they are right, they are saying that the earthquakes are causing the electrical disturbances in the atmosphere, it has nothing to do with the sun.
In the same BBC article:
?Dr Mike Blanpied, a geophysicist at the US Geological Survey (USGS), who is unconnected with the work told BBC News: ?At this point, the connection between the laboratory phenomena and processes at work in the Earth has not been demonstrated and is the subject of research.?
Martin Armstrong's interpretation is not broadly accepted. Therefore he either needs to provide exceptional data to support his claims, or at least be honest about it and inform the reader that this is a highly controversial interpretation.
Martin Armstrong:
Therefore, we may also have a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below has been found. This finding is in agreement with similar studies carried out by other space research institutes. Satellites have picked up disturbances 100 - 600 km above areas that have later been hit by earthquakes. Apparently, fluctuations in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the ionosphere have been observed, which may also provide a market for earthquakes.
Review:
First sentence ?has been found?. He provides no link to any such finding. And this ?finding is in agreement with similar studies?? which studies exactly? Density of electrons in the ionosphere have been observed? By whom? ?which may also provide a market for earthquakes? what is a market for earthquakes? May also, does also? Any evidence at all for this ?may also? claim? As discussed below, the studies he uses actually do not claim that the sun has any role in the electrical disturbances.
Martin Armstrong:
In Taiwan, similar research has agreed with this theory. The researcher Jann-Yeng Liu also reported the link between earthquake and disturbances in the ionosphere. His work examined over 100 earthquakes with magnitude 5.0 and larger in and around Taiwan over several decades. His analysis showed that nearly every earthquake down to a depth of about 35 Km was preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere. So again, is this the cause or a mere correlation?
Review:
Taiwan is a big place, would appreciate it if he provided the research so I didn't have to look for it. So found the paper I think he is talking about titled Pre-earthquake ionospheric anomalies registered by continuous GPS TEC measurements (Liu et al. 2004). The authors conclude:
?the vertical electric fields generated during the earthquake preparation periods have been proposed to explain the seismo-ionospheric anomalies (see papers listed in Hayakawa and Fujinawa, 1994; Hayakawa,1999; Pilipenko et al., 2001; Tanaka et al., 1999; Pulinets etal., 2000; Hayakawa and Molchanov, 2002; Pulinets et al.,2002). Although, the mechanisms are not fully understood, it is reasonable to assume that the anomalies appear first near the Earth?s surface and then extend to higher altitudes.?
They are claiming the earthquake generates the electrical disturbances, not the sun. There is no mention of the sun, or predictable cycles at all in the paper.
A more recent paper: Ionospheric disturbances around the time of the Ms7.0 Lushan earthquake (Yiyan et al. 2013).
In their conclusion they say:
Two mechanisms for seismo-ionospheric effects were proposed: Ionospheric oscillation caused by lithospheric outgassing along and in the vicinity of the earthquake-generating fault[16]; E - B drift generated by penetration of ionosphere by earthquake-related extra electric field on the Earth's surface[10], [45]. By using a quasi-electrostatic model for atmosphere-thermosphere-ionosphere coupling, Kim and Hegai[46], Pulinets et al[47] and Sorokin et al[48] showed that a strong vertical electric field on the Earth surface could penetrate into the ionosphere and modify its dynamics and electron density distribution prior to earthquake occurrences.
At the present, no substantial breakthrough has been made in earthquake forecast, especially in short-term forecast. Identifying different precursor signals and studying their statistical features are still major aspects in the research of earthquake forecast. As far as the time scale of seismo-ionospheric precursors is concerned the ionospheric precursors provide a possibility for realizing short-term forecast.
They propose that the disturbance in the atmosphere is caused by the earthquake releasing energy, there is no mention of solar activity, or predictable cycles.
Martin Armstrong:
The theory put forth by Minoru Freund of the NASA Ames Research Center argued that when rocks are compressed-as when tectonic plates, they act like batteries, producing electric currents. This line of reasoning would imply that the electric disturbances are the result and not the cause since compressing rocks releases electrical charges that then travel upwards into the ionosphere. However, perhaps fluctuations in the cosmic-solar radiations are charging the ionosphere first, which then transfer to the planet disrupting the geomagnetic field generating the current.
Review:
Again, would appreciate the link to this theory. At least Martin Armstrong is providing the alternative interpretation here. So, just like the study above (Yiyan et al 2013), they say that the earthquakes cause the ionosphere disturbance, there are several papers that mention that. None that I found mention that the electrical disturbances are causing the earthquake.
Martin Armstrong goes on to say ?However, perhaps fluctuations in the cosmic-solar radiations are charging the ionosphere first, which then transfer to the planet disrupting the geomagnetic field generating the current.? Ok, nice theory, although he has provided no research that shows that, and the research he does provide actually says that this isn't happening.
Martin Armstrong:
The global warming people have totally ignored the sun and its interactions with our planet and the climate. It is a known fact that during solar minimum, which we are now headed in to, is when we get the peak energy in cosmic radiation. During these maximum energy periods, the cosmic radiation can penetrate the greatest depths within the planet. The correlation with the sun also exists whereby the greatest earthquakes swarm during the period of solar minimum.
Review:
So because scientists ignore the sun for global warming, then they must be ignoring it for earthquakes as well. Great example of a false equivalence.
He makes the claim that ?the cosmic radiation can penetrate the greatest depths within the planet.? Zero evidence provided.
He also claims: ?The correlation with the sun also exists whereby the greatest earthquakes swarm during the period of solar minimum.? Again, he hasn't provided any evidence that shows this, other than one paper from 1967, which still today hasn't been used to predict earthquakes?
Martin Armstrong:
Nevertheless, the relationship between the lowest-highest solar cycles and earthquakes produces the highest level of correlation. Therefore, the data simply establish an extremely strong correlation between major earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude or more (on Richter scale) and strong solar minimum (grand minimums).
Review:
Which studies show this? What data? If it's so simple, why not provide it? I agree that an ?Extremely strong correlation? is very strong, but I would prefer to see the data myself and not have to take Martin Armstrong's word for it.
Also, he is claiming that when the sun's activity is at its minimum you will get more earthquakes? so less energy from the sun = more energy in the earth's crust? Why?
Martin Armstrong:
We are in what is being called Solar Cycle 24. This is the 24th solar cycle since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. It is the current solar cycle which began in December 2008 with a smoothed minimum of 2.2 (SIDC formula). There was only minimal activity until early 2010. It reached its maximum in April 2014 with smoothed sunspot number only 116.4, the lowest in over a century. The 8.0 2008 Sichuan earthquake took place right on schedule.
Review:
Again, have to just take his word for it all.
He wrote this article on Dec 5, 2017, so why didn't he mention these two earthquakes that are in the top 10 biggest earthquakes in recorded history?
Sendai, Japan, 11 March 2011 (9.0)
Bio-bio, Chile, 27 February 2010 (8.8 )
They are much bigger than the Sichuan one, and happened 3-4 years before the sun's minimum activity! Martin Armstrong has copied the solar cycle stuff directly from this page The Sun in 2017, without any reference, just some casual plagiarism. So the 24th solar cycle began in Dec 2008, with minimum activity, it reached its peak in April 2014. So according to Martin Armstrong there are more quakes during minimum activity, resulting in the Sichuan quake. What about the April 2014 Iquique earthquake in Chile of magnitude 8.2? This happened in the solar maximum? Completely the opposite to what Martin Armstrong is predicting. It is easy to cherry pick individual events, and this clearly proves nothing for or against, even in my case. Therefore, he must show all major earthquakes against the sun's activity to see the correlation with his cycles, and statistically calculate the probability of his model, because I have just shown his model is not 100% accurate. He hasn't provided and of this evidence, so of course I am skeptical about his claims.
If he is really predicting earthquakes ?right on schedule?, lets test out his model, why isn't he telling us to the month/day when the next major earthquake is going to happen?
Martin Armstrong:
A simple correlation with the energy output of the sun reveals that all major earthquakes occurred during strong solar minimums. Consequently, there were 7 major earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude moving into the turning point in 2008-2010. Kiril Islands (Russia) twice- 8.1 (November 2006 & January 2007), Peru-8.0 (August 2007), Sumatra-8.5 (September 2007), Sichuan earthquake-8.0 (May 2008 ), Samoa-8.1 (September 2009), Maule (Chile)-8.8 (February 2010).
Review:
Too simple to provide? I just showed above that a major magnitude 8.2 earthquake (bigger than his Sichuan example) occurred (down to the month!) during the 2014 solar maximum. Demonstrating that his claim that, ?all major earthquakes occurred during strong solar minimums?is just wrong. Ok, now at the end he mentions the Feb 2010 Chili earthquake?. Not really sure how it fits his theory though? I also do not understand his last sentence; he is listing a bunch of earthquakes as if they prove his model. What is a two year turning point? What were earthquakes doing outside of this turning point? Again, Martin Armstrong provides no evidence, no complete catalogue of earthquakes, and expects the reader to blindly accept his claims.
Martin Armstrong:
However, since this effect is a mere external forcing of the eruptive energetic threshold of a volcano, a direct link between eruptions and Sun's cycles must be excluded. Sun's activity cannot awaken a dormant volcano, but it could trigger the onset of an eruption in a volcano that is independently undergoing pre-eruptive conditions.
Review:
So now he just jumps, from earthquakes to volcanoes, as if they are the same thing. Also, he has been trying to push this idea about how solar activity plays a significant role in triggering earthquakes, and now at the end he is saying ?a direct link between eruptions and Sun?s cycles must be excluded. So what is he saying? Ok, so he then jumps back and forth, and then lands somewhere in the middle with ?but it could trigger the onset of an eruption in a volcano that is independently undergoing pre-eruptive conditions?. Ok nice conclusion, that is different to what he started out saying about earthquakes, and is now all about volcanoes which he didn't mention at all before in his sparse literature review at the beginning. He has provided zero evidence for this claim.
He then finished the article with his false equivalence fallacy about global warming. Martin Armstrong has not predicted anything, it appears he has only cherry picked historical events to fit his cycle. Regarding solar activity and earthquakes, he has made many claims in this article and provided next to no evidence. The scant research he has linked even concludes the opposite to what he is claiming. He has not demonstrated that there is a correlation with the suns activity and earthquakes (I am not saying that there isn't a correlation, but none of his citations referred to the sun at all). Also, he has not attempted to explain the mechanism for low sun activity and increased earthquake/volcano activity. He is very loose with his research to put it kindly.
Below are two papers that provide evidence to show that solar activity is not affecting earthquakes, I have quoted from the conclusions from each paper as well. This is not an extensive review, but considering Martin Armstrong could only provide one paper from 1967 that supported his interpretation I guess the burden of proof is more on Martin Armstrong's side. Also, these papers are slightly more up to date than Martin Armstrong's literature review. I pasted below from the conclusion of each paper. Also note that they are testing the correlation with various statistical tests, such as the chi-squared test (?2). Which is a basic test, of which Martin Armstrong has never provided any such tests (or data for that matter).
Paper 1: Love, J.J. and Thomas, J.N., 2013. Insignificant solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(6), pp.1165-1170.
?From retrospective analysis of historical data, we cannot confidently resolve a statistically significant relationship between solar-terrestrial variables and earthquake occurrence. Therefore, we cannot confidently reject the null hypothesis of no solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes. This does not mean, of course, that there is no such role?we just cannot detect its presence in historical data. What it does mean is that we have no testable correlation that can be used to objectively predict future earthquake?
Paper 2: Hough, S.E., 2018. Do large (magnitude? 8 ) global earthquakes occur on preferred days of the calendar year or lunar cycle?. Seismological Research Letters, 89(2A), pp.577-581.
The simple tests presented in this report confirm what seismologists have long taken for granted, that there is no evidence that large earthquake rates are modulated significantly by the position of the Earth relative to either the Moon or the Sun. If there is any modulation of large earthquake occurrence, it is either well below the level that can be detected with the present catalog or gives rise to effects that are far more complex than a global clustering through either the calendar year or the lunar month. A low level of modulation would be of no practical use for earthquake prediction. The tests illustrate once again how apparent clustering and anticlustering arise commonly in random catalogs, potentially fueling enduring earthquake myths.
Summary:
Martin Armstrong's article "Climate Change - Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles" makes controversial claims, provides no supporting evidence, and misrepresents the conclusions of research he does cite. He presents his claims as scientific but does not adhere to any scientific methodologies. He indirectly claims that his Economic Confidence Model can predict earthquakes. However, he has provided no supporting evidence, cherry picked data, and miss-quoted research in order to make it appear that he has the ability to predict earthquakes. This review has demonstrated that he cannot predict earthquakes, and urges readers to be skeptical of any economic predictions Martin Armstrong claims using the same model. As Martin Armstrong is selling his predictions, it is concluded that Armstrong is running a scam.
Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.
Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.
See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.
. tell you what max keiser now hes good he made many millionaries with his call on bitcoin but 10 years of banging on about how the system is broken etc people just dont get it yes the system is broken max but there is a a new paradigm money is being created at a crazy pace and he and his guests just dont get it the world has changed. my portfolio is completley made up of aussie gold miners im up nicely around 24% at the moment i know absolutely nothing about any of the companies i just know the theme low aussie dollar rising gold price and a world on the brink.if anybody is interested i can write the list out. i used to listen to peter schiff at one time but hes a broken clock just like max keiser dont get me wrong i still love max cos he is right i watched him when he was known as the oracle and hes right but his timing is way out.investing has changed folks its a trickie game.sorry for the awful spelling im a lazy bugger us australians are a laid back folk 
