Slashdot Mirror
NASA Quakesim Predicts 15 Out of 16 CA Quakes
Saint Aardvark writes "NASA's QuakeSim project has successfully predicted15 out of 16 of California's earthquakes with magnitude > 5, including 11 since the map was published in 2002. "So far, the technique has only missed one earthquake, a magnitude of 5.2, on June 15, 2004, under the ocean near San Clemente Island.""
I think it's a fair to ask how far in advance the quakes were predicted.
fact is, though, this is a big step in the right direction. To successfully predict a quake, you need location, magnitude and time. They've got location down and time vaguely constrained (article doesn't state time effect, other than a quake in this location within 10 years) and a lower limit on magnitude (at least 5). That's better than nothing. and certainly something to use as a starting point for future modelling efforts.
This sounds like a really cool endeavor, but why is this funded by NASA? NASA takes a lot of flak for using up lots of money and being a big administration, and its not surprising to see why with projects like this under its wings.
In the end, shouldn't such earthquake research be under a different organization?
The space unintentionally left unblank.
The articles cites don't speak much on methodology beyond using historical data (since 1932) to predict areas where magnitude 5+ earthquakes are likely. It would be interesting to read about the methods and determine if they can predict larger (6 - 6.5+) damaging earthquakes of a larger magnitude. Or more significantly, earthquakes whose damage potential (as measured using the Mercalli scale) is high.
Geologists have been using historical data to predict future potential for many years. Stream flow data are used to predict flood potential; historic hurricane landfall data are used to predict beach erosion potential; lahar ages are used to predict volcanic mud flow damage potential.
What is more useful that merely predicting areas where magnitude 5+ earthquakes are likely to occur is predicting the frequency and areal extent of damage potential -- Mercalli intensity VIII +, roughly correlating to Richter magnitude 6.5+.
Then again, we Americans continue to rebuild on 100 year flood plains, hurricane-savaged barrier islands and earthquake-prone areas. The engineering geology I learned was to avoid areas where Mother Nature is going to win in the long run.
I fail to see why folks get so into this quake prediction stuff.
Heck, we can accurately predict at least a day out when and where a hurricane will hit, yet we still have people too stupid to get out of the way. An earthquake prediction won't even be that certain -- it's not like we're going to evacuate L.A. for the week a quake is predicted.
As far as long range planning -- that's easy. California has earthquakes, all the time. Don't build things that will fall down when the ground moves.
Mind you I didn't read the article.
...But then again, who knows, maybe they did hype it up some time ago... however, this is the first I have heard of this effort.
But my point has nothing and everything to do with that.
As far as the field of "Earthquake Prediction" goes or any metric forecast for the fact of the matter, this is the first time I have heard of results before an announcement of intent.
And I wholeheartedly applaud that.
It's great to see an endeavor that "just does" without yapping it up to create the hype and controversy. Mind you, I understand it's NASA and thus publicly funded, but still, they rely upon Congressional approval for funding. I simply find it amazing to see this research performed under the radar until proven results were found. Such a course of conduct is quite admirable and after seeing hype after hype about other disperately related projects that talked up computational predictions of natural phenomena only to produce such an obscene amount of false positives as to be utterly useless.
As a geologist, I do find the prospect of earthquake prediction quite exciting. I even worked a few doors down from Dr. Keilis-Borok (predicted Japan and San Simeon, failed prediction in Southern California) this summer at UCLA, doing some earthquake research.
0 5071107.htm
Dr. K-B's approach used statistical analysis and was quite an interesting idea. His paper even correlated some previous earthquakes (such as Landers and Northridge) using his "tail-wag-the-dog" method to try and verify his results.
Anyway, regarding these latest predictions by John Rundle and his team, I decided to read the paper. You can actually find it here.
I'm not understanding how they succesfully predicted certain things or how useful his theories are. They are saying they predicted three of the earthquakes that happened in Big Bear.
From what I am understanding, the way their method works is that it shows potential "hot spots" for earthquakes for the next 10 years. That means the whole Big Bear/San Bernardino Mountains area should show up as a hotspot on their map. This doesn't mean they have succesfully predicted all 3 earthquakes though if I understand this right. They predicted the potential for one M5.0 or greater there withing the next 10 years. The fact that there were three of them is just icing on the cake I suppose?
I also can't find any information that shows how many false-positives they nailed as well. This might be kind of hard since they won't know about false-positives until after their prediction period is up in 2010. Without that data though, we can't really be sure of how good this method works. And even if it misses some, it only reduces the chance of an earthquake happening in the next X years to some percentage (which we already have certain data for from the USGS. 67% chance of a M6.7 or greater striking the Bay Area before 2030 and an 80% chance of a M7.0 or greater striking Southern California before 2030).
Admitedly, if this method is promising, it might put better constraints on the data though, so we could say something like, "97% chance of an M7.0 striking within 10 years." However, this still won't help all that much in the scheme of things.
Additional information:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/0410
John Rundle's Paper
Some years ago, I read an article in Science News describing a theory that the Earth's core rotates at a slightly different speed than the crust (much like atmosphere rotates at a different speed.) The article went on to postulate that earthquakes and volcanoes were caused by small (small compared to Mt. Everest) mountains on the core that abrade against different low-hanging areas of the crust. Those scientists were having quite some difficulty determining the period of rotation, IIRC.
Interesting idea. I don't know if anyone followed up on that research.
Anyhow, just because they aren't on the same plate, doesn't necessarily mean there is no correlation.
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
Mexico City is in a unique position - the killer quakes they have there often occur far away, but the crummy soil under the City has devastating effects for even distant quakes. So the idea is to detect a big but faraway quake and send advance notice to the City to duck, cover, pray, etc. Since the waves from the quaje travel at about the speed of sound it still takes seconds to minutes for the quake to arrive at the City. Similar systems are in use in Japan to do useful stuff like shut down natural gas pipelines, where even a few seconds notice can be useful.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"