Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Quakesim Predicts 15 Out of 16 CA Quakes

Posted by samzenpus on from the good-odds dept.

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.""

4 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sorry, Clicked submit too early: by fireduck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Eh? by CheesyPeteza · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What are you quoting?
    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.""
    But when I look at the site it says:
    the Rundle-Tiampo Forecast has accurately predicted the locations of 15 of California's 16 largest earthquakes this decade, including last week's tremors.
    Thats a pretty big difference. :o
  3. Sounds Great But... by LFS.Morpheus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  4. Short on specifics by toxic666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.