Earthquake Prediction Months In Advance

eegad writes "A UCLA seismologist named Vladimir Keilis-Borok claims earthquakes can be predicted months in advance. In the article at the University of California Newswire, he claims that the "team including experts of pattern recognition, geodynamics, seismology, chaos theory, statistical physics and public safety ... has developed algorithms to detect precursory earthquake patterns." It also says "the team's current predictions have not missed any earthquake, and have had its two most recent ones come to pass." They predict "an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.4 by Sept. 5, 2004, in a region that includes the southeastern portion of the Mojave Desert, and an area south of it." We'll see if they're right."

Comments

Yep

[Em Emalb]

While this is a great advance, the real deal will be when we get to the point we can predict precisely enough to WARN the people living in these areas.

As in, hey two weeks from friday, leave the area for a day or two.

Well *I* can predict tides!

[Joe the Lesser]

In June of 2003, this team predicted an earthquake of magnitude 6.4 or higher would strike within nine months in a 310-mile region of Central California whose southern part includes San Simeon, where a magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck on Dec. 22.

In July of 2003, the team predicted an earthquake in Japan of magnitude 7 or higher by Dec. 28, 2003, in a region that includes Hokkaido. A magnitude 8.1 earthquake struck Hokkaido on Sept. 25, 2003.

In 6-9 months there will be an earthquake within 310 miles of San Francisco of at least 4.0.

This is fun!

Re:Well *I* can predict tides!

[American AC in Paris]

In 6-9 months there will be an earthquake within 310 miles of San Francisco of at least 4.0.

This is fun!

Not to ruin a joke, but there are roughly 14,500 4.0+ earthquakes every year. By contrast, there are an average of 134 earthquakes between 6.0 and 6.9, and a whopping 17 between 7.0 and 7.9.

...so while these guys seem to be managing to hit the target, you're suggesting that you can reliably hit the broad side of the barn.

If they are on to something, this could be huge. Imagine that you're in charge of running a major international relief organization. Think of how useful it could be even to have this degree of earthquake prediction, considering that today you basically need to wait for a city to collapse before you can even begin the logistics of sending aid. If this team turns out to be on to something, odds are they'd be able to further hone their simulations and predictions to the point where you could have, say, a 200-mile radius and a 3 month 'window'. Given this window, you could take care of a lot of preparation, not the least of which is dealing with the politics of an international aid operation. Add to this the ability to 'beef up' aid agencies in the region, and you've got a lot better emergency response before the thing ever even hits...

Re:Well *I* can predict tides!

[Joe the Lesser]

I understand your point, which is valid, but I also wanted to ensure that noone got *to* excited over this, and to press the point that much more testing of this is necessary.

I mean, how many earthquakes do they miss? What's their accuracy rate? There is a lot of power is claiming to predict catastrophe, but it only takes one public slip up to stain the entire operation.

At this accuracy it might help larger organizations, but I wouldn't sell my house on their advice.

Ergo, their system is little more impressive than mine in respect to the common man, because everyone knows where quakes hit. (if they predict every major quake like this for two years, I'll change my tune.)

There's a downside to this

[John Jorsett]

If this turns out to be true, it would be a disaster for the economy in an area. Would you hang around or invest in a place where there's a big quake known to be coming in the next few months? It'd be like being told you've got a 100% chance of contracting cancer in the next few months. Although it helps you prepare, life can't be normal after that.

Re:There's a downside to this

[Schlemphfer]

If this [ability to predict earthquakes] turns out to be true, it would be a disaster for the economy in an area.

No, the real disaster for a local economy is when thousands of people hang around, and are buried alive because they weren't told to clear out. People can always come back to town after the quake hits, and return to their land and repair their buildings.

Re:There's a downside to this

[mcmonkey]

Who mods this stuff?

Would you hang around or invest in a place where there's a big quake known to be coming in the next few months?

Apparently the answer is Yes. California--with the earthquakes, fires, mud slides, Bonos and Schwarzeneggers --is the most populous state in the union. So people do hang around despite imminent doom.

And it's not just the nuts on the west coast. Idiots from Florida to the Carolinas continue to build houses in the ocean. Sure it looks like dry land today, but wait until the next hurricane comes through. Just like the California quakes it's a question of 'when' not 'if'.

So how can better predictions be bad for the local economy? Is there going to be a mass exodus? "Oh no! There's going to be an earthquake, let's all move to South Dakota!" If it hasn't happened yet, I doubt it's going to happen. And I'm sure SD prefers to be left alone anyway.

So rather than scaring off residents and business, maybe better predictions will help reduce damage and injury, which might help reduce insurance rates and costs of doing business in diaster-prone areas.

So if this turns out to be true, not only would it not be a disaster to the economy, it would be a huge asset.

Although it helps you prepare, life can't be normal after that.

Have you watched the news lately? Do you know the supreme executive of the state is 'Hercules in New York'? I would guess a life most of us would consider normal is not something most Californians need to worry about.

Where is said prediction? / Why it can't work

[dirt_puppy]

I couldn't make out where that exact prediction was made - that might have to do with the fact that I didn't find an article following the link, just an index of articles of which one was about Earthquakes.

It is apparently now possible to locate the epicenters of tiny earthquakes ("microquakes") that occur very often, and they found that these often occur in the same spot, which would tell us that that location is a place where no bigger Earthquake could happen, as the tension is released often.

Even if we assume that we can conclude the other way round (saying, if the microquakes cease for a while, the probability of a bigger quake right in that spot would rise - which is probably true sometimes), still there would be no information about when the bigger quake would occur or how much bigger it was.

Sure, one could estimate the energy buildup (maybe, in some way), but the time when the bigger quake happens is still unknown. Also, the absence of microquakes is just telling that no more of these are happening - noone can know if this is because tension is building up or if for some reason this place is now lubricated better and tends not to lock anymore.

What one would need is a reliable way to measure the tension underground, and still it wouldn't be possible to know when a big quake happens. It would give a result like "Uh this tension is really high. Better we leave right now and dont come back until the big quake happened."

So far, the only sensible protection against Earthquakes is either buildings that withstand earthquakes (or dont kill people when they collapse... well the first approach sure is favoured ;) or not building at all where quakes happen.

Hey, I can do that!!!

[DoofusOfDeath]

Here's my prediction: "somewhere on earth, before the end of time, the earth will have at least a 0.1-magnitude earthquake!"

The point is, that only claimed that that had no false negatives. But they didn't discuss another critical aspect: how many false positives they had, and how tight their specificity is.

Without those details, you miss a lot.

local economies

[cr@ckwhore]

This all seems like a hoax to me, BUT... lets pretend for a moment that it is absolutely true.

If earthquake prediction became the norm, imagine the damage to local economies here in the US!

Imagine this scenario...
"Earthquake, 2 months from now, Seattle area".

Ok, what do you, a business owner, do? Pack up and get out. Hell, you've got 2 months to do it.

Ok, what do you, a would-be tourist on vacation, do? Pick an alternate destination.

Ok, what do you, a local citizen, do? Panic. Perhaps pack the family and leave. Perhaps stay and stockpile supplies if your employer hasn't left yet.

I think it's very obvious that natural disaster prediction would be devastating for local and regional economies. In the big picture, as local economies start their own self-destruction, it'll have a bigger effect on the nation as a whole.

Re:local economies

[Skater]

We know hurricanes are coming days or sometimes even a week or two in advance. People STILL BUY LAND and LIVE in those areas. A friend of mine had her house destroyed while she was in it during a hurricane (Hugo). But she still lives in the same area.

Why would earthquakes be any different?

Example: we've been hearing about the "Big One" for California. But last I checked, California's population was still growing.

--RJ

Re:How useful is this?

[R_Harrold]

The key is to start out general and work down to more specific predictions as the methodology is improved and you can build an adequate database and figure out what parts of your model are hogwash and which parts contribute. If they can get one or more parts of the prediction accurate at the 9 month mark, then there is a chance that they can become even more accurate over lesser ranges as time progresses. Also, the ability to predict a major earthquake out at the 9 month mark would be quite welcome for municipalities who are planning emergency preparedness. Imagine being able to budget so that your emergency personnel have the materials on hand that they need. Imagine being able to say "Ok, no-one go on vacation during the August-September timeframe as we are probably going to need all the bodies we can lay our hands on. Just because in the past it has not been possible to predict this sort of thing accurately does not mean it will not be possible in the future and therefore is not worth spending money on. Robert H

Insurance?

[Remlik]

I wonder what this might do to the insurance business. Lets say perhaps they predict a 7 or greater in LA in the next 4 months... Now a smart person living in that area would go beef up their earthquake or homeowners insurance (or buy some if they don't have it already).

But a smarter insurance company might decide not to sell any more quake insurance until after the deadline if you live in that area.

So now we know they are coming but can't do much to protect ourselves other than getting out of the area.

Re:PBS

[Dun Malg]

True, but like anything else, it follows natural laws, so it is possible to predict it, if we can find an easy way to consider all the variables ( or most of them, at least ).

Which is why I am confident we will someday find a way to predict ( with 100% accuracy ) weather patterns.

My god, are you channeling Von Neumann? He said the same thing about weather and predicted 100% accurate prediction "very soon now" for quite a while. The problem is, "most of" the variables isn't enough, and there's no way to get all of the variables exactly right. Even if you had (say) a temperature sensor for each cubic inch of air space in the atmosphere, the temperature variations between the sensors will make any model you base off your sensor readings deviate from reality after a relatively small number of iterations. Complex iterative models are often insanely sensitive to initial conditions. There will never be 100% accurate weather prediction.

Re:PBS

[Jerf]

Strict weather prediction will never happen; see the sibling post to your own. QM actually prevents it, believe it or not.

What could conceivably happen is that we start manipulating weather on a large scale, and we might learn how to bend weather to our will. We'd need essentially random corrections due to the forces of chaos, but conceivably with enough control, we could say "It will rain 3 inches on this site three years in the future" (with the implicit assumption the weather control grid will still be working, i.e., no major nuclear war, no nearby supernovas, etc.).

But that's not prediction, that's control, and there's a big difference. The unpredictability of the system would still manifest itself as a complete inability to predict in advance what inputs to the system would be necessary to maintain the states we desire; we'd have to correct dynamically and in the short-term. So, even this doesn't solve the "predictability" problem, it just pushes it out one meta-level; the fundamental unpredictability remains.

Seriously though, we may not be able to imagine how it will work, or the solutions we can imagine don't work at all, but I'm confident it will happen, both for earthquakes and weather and anything else overly complex. Note that I did not say sometime soon, although I would like to see that too, I understand the technology and science we need just isn't up to par yet.

"Science" has proven that it can't work. Making those things work requires that the impossible be done. Arguments of the form "If an impossible thing happens, another impossible thing can happen" are trivially logically true, but not relevant in the real world.

Before you continue to assert how I will eventually be "proven wrong by the unbounded and unimaginable progress of humanity!!!1!!", please study the computer science concept of reduction; any solution to the weather prediction problem reduces to a method to penetrate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle fog, which would cause the complete collapse of particle physics as we know them (and remember, advances historically speaking refine past theories, not destroy them). If you still believe at that point that we might get past it, at least then you'll have some vague glimmering of the magnitude of power you are claiming we can obtain; I get no sense that you realize how scientifically and mathematically silly you're being from your current messages.

While you're at it, might want to study Godel's Incompleteness Theorum too, and the Halting Problem; there are just some limits we aren't going to go past, and as science gets more refined it can define them more and more completely.