Why Are We So Bad at Predicting Earthquakes? (telegraph.co.uk)

In the wake of major earthquakes in both Japan and Ecuador, one British newspaper asks: Why are we so bad at predicting earthquakes? In 2015 seismologists told Vice, "The more we study them, the harder they look to predict, and "there's a shortage of instrumenation." But today the Telegraph newspaper concludes that we actually have two problems: first, "science is hopeless at predicting earthquakes and, second, we keep building cities on major fault-lines..." They cite a new book called Earth-Shattering Events which reports that nearly half the world's large cities are in earthquake-prone areas, adding, "we don't just build our cities on fault-lines, we also tend to rebuild them, in the same place, but no more robust, time and time again." In 1976 one quake in China killed more than 750,000 people, while a 2004 quake in Indonesia killed 170,000. "The Earth will move and there's not a thing we can do to stop it," the Telegraph concludes, arguing that we need to learn more from our past.

Comments

SImple answer...

[QuietLagoon]

Because we do not have appropriately accurate modeling of the parts of the earth which cause earthquakes occur.

.
Why don't we have the appropriate modeling? Because we do not have enough information to create those models.

Why don't we have the information to create the models? Because we do not explore the earth enough.

Re:SImple answer...

[PsychoSlashDot]

Because we do not have appropriately accurate modeling of the parts of the earth which cause earthquakes occur.

Actually, it's because we're bad at predicting, period, end of sentence

Wonderful things like reinforcement bias and the availability heuristic meddle with our accuracy. There's a reason why earthquake insurance sells the best days after an earthquake, when statistically that's when there's the least risk. When something horrible happens, people suddenly remember, and Do Something, but as the years add up since the last event, we become lax.

That's the personal level. I recommend reading Risk by Dan Gardner to lean a bunch about this in general. From that book, he moved on with Philip Tetlock and wrote Future Babble and then Superforecasting, which more closely refine the general psychology covered in Risk down to mathematical models and expert opinions. Risk is a fascinating read useful to individuals to understand why grocery stores have sales with "limit 10 per customer", and why more extra Americans died driving the year after September 11th than died in the attacks themselves, and the other two get (much) more into "why are economists wrong so often" (Future Babble), and finally "why are some people so good at analyzing data and predicting things like complex geopolitical events and the like, and how can we learn to be like them" (Superforecasting).

I leave locating the books to the audience as you know what bookstores you prefer and the author and titles are very clear.

What straw will break the camel's back

[Kjella]

We know where earthquakes will be - along fault lines. When will it happen? When the tension gets too high. It's like asking what pebble will start a landslide, what snowflake will start an avalance or what straw will break the camel's back. The problem isn't the lack of an answer, the problem is that we're expecting an exact result to a complex and chaotic process. Would you also like a map of where lighting is going to strike?

Suppose we could...

[R3d M3rcury]

That brings up an interesting question--what do we do about it?

"We've determined that on May 17, 2015, there will be a 6.0-level earthquake in San Francisco. We believe the accuracy of this prediction to be 90%."

Great! We've got a month's warning. It's going to be major. We're pretty sure it's going to happen--but there's a possibility that it won't.

Now what? Evacuate 800,000 people? Start building shelters that can withstand the earthquake? Do you tell people so that they can prepare?

Re:The hubris of man

[pixelpusher220]

Amazingly it depends on the height of the building. Shorter 'boxes' can ride out quakes pretty well being super rigid. Super tall need the flexibility. The problem is the 9-15 story buildings that aren't tall enough for the flexibility to help but too big to be rigid against the shaking.

I work in a 12 story :(

Not true

[infernalC]

There is a risk market for earthquakes. Actuaries would love to have better predictability for earthquakes to better calculate the risk so that insurance products can be priced more accurately. If someone is going to fund earthquake research, real property insurers are your best bet.