Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 21:57, 30 November 2013 edit156.39.10.22 (talk) Undid revision 583950180 by J. Johnson (talk) According to Google scholar, the VAN results have been cited maybe 100 times. The Fraser-Smith report is cited about 500 times.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:06, 24 November 2024 edit undoDawnseeker2000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers482,939 edits minor formattingTag: AWB
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description|Branch of seismology}}
			{{For|probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard|earthquake forecasting}}
			{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2014}}{{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}<!-- Because of repeated breakage of formatting. 2019-08-09 JJ -->
	{{Earthquakes}}		{{Earthquakes}}
	'''Earthquake prediction''' "is usually defined as the specification of the time, location, and magnitude of a future earthquake within stated limits",<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1997|p=1616}}, following {{Harvtxt|Allen|1976|p=2070}}, who in turn followed {{Harvtxt|Wood|Gutenberg|1935}}. In addition to specification of time, location, and magnitude, Allen suggested three other requirements: 4) indication of the author's confidence in the prediction, 5) the chance of an earthquake occurring anyway as a random event, and 6) publication in a form that gives failures the same visibility as successes.</ref> and particularly of "the ''next'' strong earthquake to occur in a region."<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b}}, p. 507.</ref> This can be distinguished from ''earthquake forecasting'', which is the probabilistic assessment of ''general'' earthquake hazard, including the frequency and magnitude of damaging earthquakes, in a given area over periods of years or decades.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kanamori|2003}}, p. 1205. See also {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011}}, p. 327. Not all scientists distinguish "prediction" and "forecast", but it is useful, and will be observed in this article.</ref> This can be further distinguished from real-time ]s, which, upon detection of a severe earthquake, can provide neighboring regions a few seconds warning of potentially significant shaking.		'''Earthquake prediction''' is a branch of the science of ] concerned with the specification of the time, location, and ] of future ]s within stated limits,<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1997|p=1616}}, following {{Harvnb|Allen|1976|p=2070}}, who in turn followed {{Harvnb|Wood|Gutenberg|1935}}.</ref>{{efn|1={{Harvtxt|Kagan|1997b|loc=§2.1}} says: "This definition has several defects which contribute to confusion and difficulty in prediction research." In addition to specification of time, location, and magnitude, Allen suggested three other requirements: 4) indication of the author's confidence in the prediction, 5) the chance of an earthquake occurring anyway as a random event, and 6) publication in a form that gives failures the same visibility as successes. {{Harvtxt|Kagan|Knopoff|1987|p=1563}} define prediction (in part) "to be a formal rule where by the available space-time-seismic moment manifold of earthquake occurrence is significantly contracted …"}} and particularly "the determination of parameters for the ''next'' strong earthquake to occur in a region".<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b|p=507}}.</ref> Earthquake prediction is sometimes distinguished from '']'', which can be defined as the probabilistic assessment of ''general'' earthquake hazard, including the frequency and magnitude of damaging earthquakes in a given area over years or decades.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kanamori|2003|p=1205}}.</ref>{{efn|1={{Harvtxt|ICEF|2011|p=327}} distinguishes between predictions (as deterministic) and forecasts (as probabilistic).}}
			Prediction can be further distinguished from ]s, which, upon detection of an earthquake, provide a real-time warning of seconds to neighboring regions that might be affected.
	To be useful, an earthquake prediction must be ''precise'' enough to warrant the cost of increased precautions, including disruption of ordinary activities and commerce, and ''timely'' enough that preparation can be made. Predictions must also be ''reliable'', as false alarms and cancelled alarms are not only economically costly,<ref>{{Harvnb|Thomas|1983}}.</ref> but seriously undermine confidence in, and thereby the effectiveness of, any kind of warning.<ref>{{Harvnb|Atwood|Major|1998}}.</ref>
	With over 13,000 earthquakes around the world each year with a magnitude of 4.0 or greater, trivial success in earthquake prediction is easily obtained using sufficiently broad parameters of time, location, or magnitude.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mabey|2001}}. Mabey cites 7,000, using some older data. The yearly distribution of earthquakes by magnitude, in both the United States and worldwide, can be found at the .</ref> However, such trivial "successful predictions" are not useful. Useful prediction of large (damaging) earthquakes in a timely manner is generally notable for its absence, the few claims of success being controverted.<ref>E.g., the most famous claim of a successful prediction is that alleged for the ] {{Harv|ICEF|2011|p=328}}, and is now listed as such in textbooks {{Harv|Jackson|2004|p=344}}. A later study concluded there was no valid short-term prediction {{Harv|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006}}, as described in more detail below.</ref> Extensive searches have reported many ''possible'' earthquake precursors, but none have been found to be reliable.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1996}}.</ref>		In the 1970s, scientists were optimistic that a practical method for predicting earthquakes would soon be found, but by the 1990s continuing failure led many to question whether it was even possible.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1997|p=1617}}; {{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=§2.3|p=427}}; {{Harvnb|Console|2001|p=261}}<!--; {{Harvnb|Allen|1976}}-->.</ref> Demonstrably successful predictions of large earthquakes have not occurred, and the few claims of success are controversial. For example, the most famous claim of a successful prediction is that alleged for the ].<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=328}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|2004|p=344}}.</ref> A later study said that there was no valid short-term prediction.<ref>{{Harvnb|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006}}.</ref> Extensive searches have reported many possible earthquake precursors, but, so far, such precursors have not been reliably identified across significant spatial and temporal scales.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=Summary}}.</ref> While part of the scientific community hold that, taking into account non-seismic precursors and given enough resources to study them extensively, prediction might be possible, most scientists are pessimistic and some maintain that earthquake prediction is inherently impossible.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b}}; {{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}; {{Harvnb|Main|1999}}.</ref>
			== Evaluating earthquake predictions ==
	In the 1970s there was intense optimism amongst scientists that some method of predicting earthquakes might be found, but by the 1990s continuing failure led many scientists to question whether it was even possible.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}, §2.3, p. 427; {{Harvnb|Console|2001}}, p. 261<!-- {{Harvnb|Allen|1976}} -->.</ref> While many scientists still hold that, given enough resources, prediction might be possible, many others maintain that earthquake prediction is inherently impossible.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b}}; {{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}. See also .</ref>
			{{See also|Prediction#Prediction in science}}
			Predictions are deemed significant if they can be shown to be successful beyond random chance.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992|p=32}}; {{Harvnb|Luen|Stark|2008|p=302}}.</ref> Therefore, methods of ] are used to determine the probability that an earthquake such as is predicted would happen anyway (the ]). The predictions are then evaluated by testing whether they correlate with actual earthquakes better than the null hypothesis.<ref>{{Harvnb|Luen|Stark|2008}}; {{Harvnb|Console|2001}}.</ref>
	==The problem of earthquake prediction==
	{{quote box
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>"Only fools and charlatans predict earthquakes."</big>
	|source= — ]<ref>Quoted by {{Harvnb|Hough|2007}}, p. 253. {{Harvnb|Scholz|1997}} quotes a variant: "Bah, no one but fools and charlatans try to predict earthquakes!"</ref>
	}}
			In many instances, however, the statistical nature of earthquake occurrence is not simply homogeneous. Clustering occurs in both space and time.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|1996a|p=3775}}.</ref> In southern California about 6% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10&nbsp;km."<ref>{{Harvnb|Jones|1985|p=1669}}.</ref> In central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 48 hours and 30&nbsp;km.<ref>{{Harvnb|Console|2001|p=1261}}.</ref> While such statistics are not satisfactory for purposes of prediction (giving ten to twenty false alarms for each successful prediction) they will skew the results of any analysis that assumes that earthquakes occur randomly in time, for example, as realized from a ]. It has been shown that a "naive" method based solely on clustering can successfully predict about 5% of earthquakes; "far better than 'chance'".<ref>{{Harvnb|Luen|Stark|2008}}. This was based on data from Southern California.</ref>
	=== Definition and validity ===
	The prediction of earthquakes is plagued from the outset by two problems: the definition of "prediction", and the definition of "earthquake". This might seem trivial, especially of the latter: it would seem that the ground shakes, or it doesn't. But in seismically active areas the ground frequently shakes. Just not hard enough for most people to notice.
			]
	{| class=wikitable style="float: right; margin: 12px;" border="1"
			As the purpose of short-term prediction is to enable emergency measures to reduce death and destruction, failure to give warning of a major earthquake, that does occur, or at least an adequate evaluation of the hazard, can result in legal liability, or even political purging. For example, it has been reported that members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences were purged for "having ignored scientific predictions of the disastrous Tangshan earthquake of summer 1976."<ref>{{Harvnb|Wade|1977}}.</ref> Following the ], seven scientists and technicians in Italy were convicted of manslaughter, but not so much for failing to ''predict'' the earthquake, where some 300 people died, as for ''giving undue assurance'' to the populace – one victim called it "anaesthetizing" – that there would ''not'' be a serious earthquake, and therefore no need to take precautions.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hall|2011}}; {{Harvnb|Cartlidge|2011}}. Additional details in {{Harvnb|Cartlidge|2012}}.</ref> But warning of an earthquake that does not occur also incurs a cost: not only the cost of the emergency measures themselves, but of civil and economic disruption.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=§5.2|p=437}}.</ref> False alarms, including alarms that are canceled, also undermine the credibility, and thereby the effectiveness, of future warnings.<ref>{{Harvnb|Atwood|Major|1998}}.</ref> In 1999 it was reported<ref>{{Harvnb|Saegusa|1999}}.</ref> that China was introducing "tough regulations intended to stamp out 'false' earthquake warnings, in order to prevent panic and mass evacuation of cities triggered by forecasts of major tremors." This was prompted by "more than 30 unofficial earthquake warnings ... in the past three years, none of which has been accurate."{{efn|1=However, {{Harvtxt|Mileti|Sorensen|1990}} have argued that the extent of panic related to public disaster forecasts, and the 'cry wolf' problem with respect to repeated false alarms, have both been overestimated, and can be mitigated through appropriate communications from the authorities.}} The acceptable trade-off between missed quakes and false alarms depends on the societal valuation of these outcomes. The rate of occurrence of both must be considered when evaluating any prediction method.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mason|2003|p=48}} and throughout.</ref>
	|+ Approx. # of quakes per year, globally<ref>From USGS: and , following {{Harvnb|Noson|Qamar|Thorsen|1988|p=11}}.</ref>
	|-
	! Mag. || Class. || #
	|-
	| M = 8 || Great || align="right" | 1
	|-
	| M = 7 || Major || align="right" | 15
	|-
	| M = 6 || Large || align="right" | 134
	|-
	| M = 5 || Moderate || align="right" | 1319
	|-
	| M = 4 || Small || align="right" | ~13,000
	|-
	|}
	Notable shaking of the earth's crust<ref>The intensity (force) of shaking felt at a given location depends on the magnitude (energy released), distance from the hypocenter, orientation of the fault plane of the rupture, and local ground conditions.</ref> typically results from one earthquake of ] 8 or greater (M ≥ 8) somewhere in the world each year (the four M ≥ 8 quakes in 2007 being exceptional), and another 15 or so "major" M ≥ 7 quakes (but 23 in 2010).<ref></ref> The USGS reckons another 134 "large" quakes above M 6, and about 1300 quakes in the "moderate" range, from M 5 to M 5.9 ("felt by all, many frightened"<ref>, level VI.</ref>). In the M 4 to M 4.9 range – "small" – it is estimated that there are 13,000 quakes annually. Quakes less than M 4 – noticeable to only a few persons, and possibly not recognized as an earthquake – number over a million each year, or roughly 150 per hour.
			In a 1997 study<ref>{{Harvnb|Stiros|1997}}.</ref> of the cost-benefit ratio of earthquake prediction research in Greece, Stathis Stiros suggested that even a (hypothetical) excellent prediction method would be of questionable social utility, because "organized evacuation of urban centers is unlikely to be successfully accomplished", while "panic and other undesirable side-effects can also be anticipated." He found that earthquakes kill less than ten people per year in Greece (on average), and that most of those fatalities occurred in large buildings with identifiable structural issues. Therefore, Stiros stated that it would be much more cost-effective to focus efforts on identifying and upgrading unsafe buildings. Since the death toll on Greek highways is more than 2300 per year on average, he argued that more lives would also be saved if Greece's entire budget for earthquake prediction had been used for street and highway safety instead.<ref>{{Harvnb|Stiros|1997|p=483}}.</ref>
	With such a constant drumbeat of earthquakes various kinds of chicanery can be used to deceptively claim "predictions" that appear more successful than is truly the case.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mabey|2001}}.</ref> E.g., predictions can be made that leave one or more parameters of location, time, and magnitude unspecified. These are subsequently adjusted to include what ever earthquakes as do occur. These would more properly be called "''post''dictions". Alternately, "''pan''dictions" can be made, with such broad parameters as will most likely match some earthquake, some time, some where. These are indeed predictions, but trivial, meaningless for any purpose of fore-telling, and quite useless for making timely preparations for "the next big one". Or multiple predictions – "''multi''dictions" – can be made, each of which, alone, seems statistically unlikely. "Success" derives from revealing, after the event, only those that prove successful.
			== Prediction methods ==
	To be meaningful, an earthquake prediction must be properly qualified. This includes unambiguous specification of time, location, and magnitude.<ref>See {{Harvnb|Jackson|1996a}}, p. 3772, for an example.</ref> These should be stated either as ranges ("windows", error bounds), or with a weighting function, or with some definitive inclusion rule provided, so that there is no issue as to whether any particular event is, or is not, included in the prediction, so a prediction cannot be retrospectively expanded to include an earthquake it would have otherwise missed, or contracted to appear more significant than it really was. To show that a prediction is not post-selected ("cherry-picked") from a number of generally unsuccessful and unrevealed multi-dictions, it must be published in a manner that reveals all attempts at prediction, failures as well as successes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Allen|1976}}, p. 2070; {{Harvnb|PEP|1976}}, p. 6.</ref>
			Earthquake prediction is an immature science{{snd}}it has not yet led to a successful prediction of an earthquake from first physical principles. Research into methods of prediction therefore focus on empirical analysis, with two general approaches: either identifying distinctive ''precursors'' to earthquakes, or identifying some kind of geophysical ''trend'' or pattern in seismicity that might precede a large earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Panel on Earthquake Prediction|1976|p=9}}.</ref> Precursor methods are pursued largely because of their potential utility for short-term earthquake prediction or forecasting, while 'trend' methods are generally thought to be useful for forecasting, long term prediction (10 to 100 years time scale) or intermediate term prediction (1 to 10 years time scale).<ref>{{Harvnb|Uyeda|Nagao|Kamogawa|2009|p=205}}; {{Harvnb|Hayakawa|2015}}.</ref>
			=== Precursors ===
	To be deemed "scientific" a prediction should be based on some kind of natural process, and derived in a manner such that any other researcher using the same method would obtain the same result.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}, §4.7, p. 437.</ref> Scientists are also expected to state their confidence in the reliability of the prediction, and their estimate of an earthquake happening in the prediction window by chance (discussed below).<ref>{{Harvnb|Allen|1976|p=2070}}.</ref>
			An earthquake precursor is an anomalous phenomenon that might give effective warning of an impending earthquake.{{efn|1=The IASPEI Sub-Commission for Earthquake Prediction defined a precursor as "a quantitatively measurable change in an environmental parameter that occurs before mainshocks, and that is thought to be linked to the preparation process for this mainshock."<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=§3.1}}.</ref>}} Reports of these – though generally recognized as such only after the event – number in the thousands,<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|p=429|loc=§3}}.</ref> some dating back to antiquity.<ref>E.g., ], in ''De natura animalium, book 11'', commenting on the destruction of ] in 373 BC, but writing five centuries later.</ref> There have been around 400 reports of possible precursors in scientific literature, of roughly twenty different types,<ref>{{Harvnb|Rikitake|1979|p=294}}. {{Harvnb|Cicerone|Ebel|Britton|2009}} has a more recent compilation</ref> running the gamut from ] to zoology.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|2004|p=335}}.</ref> None have been found to be reliable for the purposes of earthquake prediction.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|p=425}}. See also: {{Harvnb|Jackson|2004|p=348}}: "The search for precursors has a checkered history, with no convincing successes." {{Harvnb|Zechar|Jordan|2008|p=723}}: "The consistent failure to find reliable earthquake precursors...". {{Harvnb|ICEF|2009}}: "... no convincing evidence of diagnostic precursors."</ref>
			In the early 1990, the ] solicited nominations for a Preliminary List of Significant Precursors. Forty nominations were made, of which five were selected as possible significant precursors, with two of those based on a single observation each.<ref>{{Harvnb|Wyss|Booth|1997|p=424}}.</ref>
	]
	A prediction ("alarm") can be made, or not, and an earthquake may occur, or not; these basic possibilities are shown in the contingency table at right. Once the various outcomes are tabulated various performance measures can be calculated.<ref>See {{Harvnb|Jolliffe|Stephenson|2003| loc=§3.2.2}}, {{Harvnb|Nurmi|2003|loc=§4.1}}, and {{Harvnb|Zechar|2008|loc=Table 2.6}}, for details.</ref> E.g., the '''success rate''' is the proportion of all ''predictions'' which were successful , while the '''Hit rate''' (or alarm rate) is the proportion of all ''events'' which were successfully predicted . The '''false alarm ratio''' is the proportion of ''predictions'' which are false . This is not to be confused<ref>This is a point which many scientific papers get wrong. See {{Harvnb|Barnes|Schultz|Gruntfest|Hayden|2009}}.</ref> with the '''false alarm rate''', which is the proportion of all ''non-events'' incorrectly "alarmed" .<ref>These are the basic performance measures. {{Harvtxt|Mason|2003}}
	describes additional performance measures.</ref>
			After a critical review of the scientific literature, the ''International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection'' (ICEF) concluded in 2011 there was "considerable room for methodological improvements in this type of research."<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=338}}.</ref> In particular, many cases of reported precursors are contradictory, lack a measure of amplitude, or are generally unsuitable for a rigorous statistical evaluation. Published results are biased towards positive results, and so the rate of false negatives (earthquake but no precursory signal) is unclear.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=361}}.</ref>
	These performance measures can be manipulated by adjusting the level (threshold) at which a prediction (alarm) is made. Raising the level improves the success rate (fewer predictions, but a greater percentage of them are successful), but also results in more missed earthquakes (type II errors). Lowering the level imrpoves the hit rate (more likely to catch an earthquake), but also results in more false alarms (type I errors). There is no inherently "right" level; the acceptable trade-off between missed quakes and false alarms depends on the societal valuation of these outcomes. As either of the success rate or the hit rate can be improved at the expense of the other, both should be considered when evaluating a prediction method.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mason|2003|p=48}} and through out.</ref>
	=== Significance ===		==== Animal behavior ====
			After an earthquake has already begun, pressure waves (]s) travel twice as fast as the more damaging shear waves (]s).<ref>{{Harvnb|Bolt|1993|pp=30–32}}.</ref> Typically not noticed by humans, some animals may notice the smaller vibrations that arrive a few to a few dozen seconds before the main shaking, and become alarmed or exhibit other unusual behavior.<ref name="usgs_animals">{{Cite web|url=https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/animals-earthquake-prediction?qt-science_center_objects=0|title=Animals & Earthquake Prediction &#124; U.S. Geological Survey|publisher=United States Geological Survey}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=336}}; {{Harvnb|Lott|Hart|Howell|1981|p=1204}}.</ref> ]s can also detect P waves, and the timing difference is exploited by electronic ]s to provide humans with a few seconds to move to a safer location.
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>"All predictions of the future can be to some extent successful by chance." </big>
	|source= — {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992}}
	}}
	While the actual occurrence – or non-occurrence – of a specified earthquake might seem sufficient for evaluating a prediction, scientists understand there is always a chance, however small, of getting lucky. A prediction is ''significant'' only to the extent it is successful ''beyond chance''.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992}}, p. 32; {{Harvnb|Luen|Stark|2008}}, p. 302.</ref> Therefore they use ] to determine the probability that an earthquake such as is predicted would happen anyway (the ]). They then evaluate whether the prediction – or a series of predictions produced by some method – correlates with actual earthquakes better than the null hypothesis.<ref>{{Harvnb|Luen|Stark|2008}}; {{Harvnb|Console|2001}}.</ref>
			A review of scientific studies available as of 2018 covering over 130 species found insufficient evidence to show that animals could provide warning of earthquakes hours, days, or weeks in advance.<ref name="2018_review">{{Cite web|url=https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/108/3A/1031/530275/Review-Can-Animals-Predict-Earthquakes-Review-Can?redirectedFrom=fulltext|title=}}</ref> Statistical correlations suggest some reported unusual animal behavior is due to smaller earthquakes (]s) that sometimes precede a large quake,<ref name="society">{{Cite web|url=https://www.seismosoc.org/news/can-animals-predict-earthquakes/|title=Can Animals Predict Earthquakes? &#124; Seismological Society of America|publisher=Seismological Society of America}}</ref> which if small enough may go unnoticed by people.<ref>{{Harvnb|Lott|Hart|Howell|1981}}.</ref> Foreshocks may also cause groundwater changes or release gases that can be detected by animals.<ref name="society" /> Foreshocks are also detected by seismometers, and have long been studied as potential predictors, but without success (see ]). Seismologists have not found evidence of medium-term physical or chemical changes that predict earthquakes which animals might be sensing.<ref name="2018_review" />
	A null hypothesis must be chosen carefully. E.g., many studies have naively assumed that earthquakes occur randomly. But earthquakes do ''not'' occur randomly: they often cluster in both space and time.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|1996a}}, p. 3775.</ref> In southern California it has been estimated that about 6% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km."<ref>{{Harvnb|Jones|1985|p=1669}}.</ref> It has been estimated that in central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 30&nbsp;km and 48 hours.<ref>{{Harvnb|Console|2001|p=1261}}.</ref> While such statistics are not satisfactory for purposes of prediction (in giving ten to twenty false alarms for each successful prediction) they will skew the results of any analysis that assumes a random (]) distribution of earthquakes. It has been shown that a "naive" method based solely on clustering can successfully predict about 5% of earthquakes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Luen|Stark|2008}}. This was based on data from Southern California.</ref> Perhaps not as successful as a stopped clock, but still better, however slightly, than pure chance.
			Anecdotal reports of strange animal behavior before earthquakes have been recorded for thousands of years.<ref name="usgs_animals" /> Some unusual animal behavior may be mistakenly attributed to a near-future earthquake. The ] effect causes unremarkable details to become more memorable and more significant when associated with an emotionally powerful event such as an earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Brown|Kulik|1977}}.</ref> Even the vast majority of scientific reports in the 2018 review did not include observations showing that animals did ''not'' act unusually when there was ''not'' an earthquake about to happen, meaning the behavior was not established to be predictive.<ref name="society" />
	Use of an incorrect null hypothesis is only one way that many studies claiming a low but significant level of success in predicting earthquakes are statistically flawed.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b}} relates how several claims of successful predictions are statistically flawed. For a deeper view of the pitfalls of the null hypothesis see {{Harvnb|Stark|1997}} and {{Harvnb|Luen|Stark|2008}}.</ref> To avoid these and other problems the ''Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability'' (CSEP) has developed a means of rigorously and consistently conducting and evaluating earthquake prediction experiments where scientists can submit a prediction method which is then prospectively evaluated against an authoritative catalog of observed earthquakes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Zechar|Schorlemmer|Liukis|Yu|2010}}.</ref>
			Most researchers investigating animal prediction of earthquakes are in China and Japan.<ref name="usgs_animals" /> Most scientific observations have come from the ] in New Zealand, the ] in Japan, and the ] in Italy.<ref name="society" />
	=== Consequences ===
	Predictions of major earthquakes by those claiming psychic premonitions are commonplace, uncredible, and create little disturbance. Predictions by those with scientific or even pseudo-scientific qualifications often cause serious social and economic disruption, and pose a great quandary for both scientists and public officials.
			Animals known to be ] might be able to detect ] in the ] and ] ranges that reach the surface of the Earth before an earthquake, causing odd behavior. These electromagnetic waves could also cause air ], water ] and possible water toxification which other animals could detect.<ref>{{Harvnb|Freund|Stolc|2013}}.</ref>
	Some possibly predictive precursors – such as a sudden increase in seismicity – may give only a few hours of warning, allowing little deliberation and consultation with others. As the purpose of short-term prediction is to enable emergency measures to reduce death and destruction, failure to give warning of a major earthquake, that does occur, or at least an adequate evaluation of the hazard, can result in legal liability,<ref>The manslaughter convictions against the seven scientists and technicians in Italy are not for failing to ''predict'' the L'Aquila earthquake (where some 300 people died) as for ''giving undue assurance'' to the populace – one victim called it "anaesthetizing" – that there would ''not'' be a serious earthquake, and therefore no need to take precautions. {{Harvnb|Hall|2011}}; {{Harvnb|Cartlidge|2011}}. Additional details in {{Harvnb|Cartlidge|2012}}.</ref> or even political purging.<ref>It has been reported that members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences were purged for "having ignored scientific predictions of the disastrous Tangshan earthquake of summer 1976." {{Harvnb|Wade|1977}}.</ref> But giving a warning – crying "wolf!" – of an earthquake that does ''not'' occur also incurs a cost.<ref>In January of 1999 there was a report {{Harv|Saegusa|1999}} that China was introducing "tough regulations intended to stamp out ‘false’ earthquake warnings, in order to prevent panic and mass evacuation of cities triggered by forecasts of major tremors." This was prompted by "more than 30 unofficial earthquake warnings ... in the past three years, none of which has been accurate."</ref> Not just of the emergency measures themselves, but of major civil and economic disruption. Geller<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}, §5.2, p. 437.</ref> describes the arrangements made in Japan:
	<blockquote> ... if ‘anomalous data’ are recorded, an ‘Earthquake Assessment Committee’ (EAC) will be convened within two hours. Within 30 min the EAC must make a black (alarm) or white (no alarm) recommendation. The former would cause the Prime Minister to issue the alarm, which would shut down all expressways, bullet trains, schools, factories, etc., in an area covering seven prefectures. Tokyo would also be effectively shut down. </blockquote>
			==== Dilatancy–diffusion ====
	The cost of such measures has been estimated at US$7 billion per day.
			In the 1970s the dilatancy–diffusion hypothesis was highly regarded as providing a physical basis for various phenomena seen as possible earthquake precursors.<ref name=":1">{{Harvnb|Main|Bell|Meredith|Geiger|2012|p=215}}.</ref> It was based on "solid and repeatable evidence"<ref>{{Harvnb|Main|Bell|Meredith|Geiger|2012|p=217}}.</ref> from laboratory experiments that highly stressed crystalline rock experienced a change in volume, or ''dilatancy'',{{efn|1=Subsequent ''diffusion'' of water back into the affected volume of rock is what leads to failure.<ref>{{Harvnb|Main|Bell|Meredith|Geiger|2012|p=215}}; {{Harvnb|Hammond|1973}}.</ref>}} which causes changes in other characteristics, such as seismic velocity and electrical resistivity, and even large-scale uplifts of topography. It was believed this happened in a 'preparatory phase' just prior to the earthquake, and that suitable monitoring could therefore warn of an impending quake.
			Detection of variations in the relative velocities of the primary and secondary seismic waves – expressed as Vp/Vs – as they passed through a certain zone was the basis for predicting the 1973 Blue Mountain Lake (NY) and 1974 Riverside (CA) quake.<ref name=":2">{{Harvnb|Hammond|1974}}.</ref> Although these predictions were informal and even trivial, their apparent success was seen as confirmation of both dilatancy and the existence of a preparatory process, leading to what were subsequently called "wildly over-optimistic statements"<ref name=":1"/> that successful earthquake prediction "appears to be on the verge of practical reality."<ref>{{Harvnb|Scholz|Sykes|Aggarwal|1973}}, quoted by {{Harvnb|Hammond|1973}}.</ref>
	The quandary is that even when increased seismicity suggests that an earthquake is imminent in a given area, there is no way of getting definite knowledge of whether there will be a larger quake of any given magnitude, or when.<ref>The ] came after three months of tremors, but many devastating earthquakes hit with no warning at all.</ref> If scientists and the civil authorities ''knew'' that (for instance) in some area there was an 80% chance of a large (M > 6) earthquake in a matter of a day or two, they would see a clear benefit in issuing an alarm. But is it worth the cost of civil and economic disruption and possible panic, and the corrosive effect a false alarm has on future alarms, if the chance is only 5%?
			However, many studies questioned these results,<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|pp=333–334}}; {{Harvnb|McEvilly|Johnson|1974}}; {{Harvnb|Lindh|Lockner|Lee|1978}}.</ref> and the hypothesis eventually languished. Subsequent study showed it "failed for several reasons, largely associated with the validity of the assumptions on which it was based", including the assumption that laboratory results can be scaled up to the real world.<ref>{{Harvnb|Main|Bell|Meredith|Geiger|2012|p=226}}.</ref> Another factor was the bias of retrospective selection of criteria.<ref>{{Harvnb|Main|Bell|Meredith|Geiger|2012|pp=220–221, 226}}; see also {{Harvnb|Lindh|Lockner|Lee|1978}}.</ref> Other studies have shown dilatancy to be so negligible that {{Harvnb|Main|Bell|Meredith|Geiger|2012}} concluded: "The concept of a large-scale 'preparation zone' indicating the likely magnitude of a future event, remains as ethereal as the ether that went undetected in the ] experiment."
	]
	Some of the trade-offs can be seen in the chart at right. By lowering "The Bar" – the threshold at which an alarm is issued – the chances of being caught off-guard are reduced, and the potential loss of life and property may be mitigated. But this also increases the number, and cost, of false alarms. If the threshold is set for an estimated one chance in ten of a quake, the other nine chances will be false alarms.<ref>One study {{Harv|Zechar|2008|p=18, table 2.5}} calculated (for the method and data studied) a result distribution of 2 correct predictions, 2 misses, and 19 false alarms. The report from China {{Harv|Saegusa|1999}} mentioned "more than 30" predictions, all of which were false alarms.</ref> Such a high rate of false alarms is a public policy issue itself, which has not yet been resolved.
			==== Changes in V<sub>p</sub>/V<sub>s</sub> ====
	To avoid the all-or-nothing ("black/white") kind of response the '']'' (CEPEC) has used a notification protocol where short-term advisories of possible major earthquakes (M ≥ 7) can be provided at four levels of probability.<ref>Details at {{Harvnb|Southern SAF Working Group|1991|pp=1–2}}. See {{Harvnb|Jordan|Jones|2010}} for examples.</ref>
			''V''<sub>p</sub> is the symbol for the velocity of a seismic "P" (primary or pressure) wave passing through rock, while ''V''<sub>s</sub> is the symbol for the velocity of the "S" (secondary or shear) wave. Small-scale laboratory experiments have shown that the ratio of these two velocities – represented as ''V''<sub>p</sub>/''V''<sub>s</sub> – changes when rock is near the point of fracturing. In the 1970s it was considered a likely breakthrough when Russian seismologists reported observing such changes (later discounted.<ref name=":3">{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b}}.</ref>) in the region of a subsequent earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hammond|1973}}. Additional references in {{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=§2.4}}.</ref> This effect, as well as other possible precursors, has been attributed to dilatancy, where rock stressed to near its breaking point expands (dilates) slightly.<ref name=":4">{{Harvnb|Scholz|Sykes|Aggarwal|1973}}.</ref>
	{{clear right}}
			Study of this phenomenon near ] in ] led to a successful albeit informal prediction in 1973,<ref>{{Harvnb|Aggarwal|Sykes|Simpson|Richards|1975}}.</ref> and it was credited for predicting the 1974 Riverside (CA) quake.<ref name=":2"/> However, additional successes have not followed, and it has been suggested that these predictions were a fluke.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|p=110}}.</ref> A ''V''<sub>p</sub>/''V''<sub>s</sub> anomaly was the basis of a 1976 prediction of a M 5.5 to 6.5 earthquake near Los Angeles, which failed to occur.<ref>{{Harvnb|Allen|1983|p=79}}; {{Harvnb|Whitcomb|1977}}.</ref> Other studies relying on quarry blasts (more precise, and repeatable) found no such variations,<ref>{{Harvnb|McEvilly|Johnson|1974}}.</ref> while an analysis of two earthquakes in California found that the variations reported were more likely caused by other factors, including retrospective selection of data.<ref>{{Harvnb|Lindh|Lockner|Lee|1978}}.</ref> {{Harvtxt|Geller|1997}} noted that reports of significant velocity changes have ceased since about 1980.
	== Prediction methods ==
	Earthquake prediction, as a branch of ], is an immature science in the sense that it cannot predict from first principles the location, date, and magnitude of an earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|1999}}, p. 234, and quoting Ben-Menahem (1995) on p. 235; {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=360}}.</ref> Research in this area therefore seeks to empirically derive a reliable basis for predictions in either distinct precursors, or some kind of trend or pattern.<ref>{{Harvnb|PEP|1976|p=9}}.</ref>
	===Precursors===		==== Radon emissions ====
			Most rock contains small amounts of gases that can be isotopically distinguished from the normal atmospheric gases. There are reports of spikes in the concentrations of such gases prior to a major earthquake; this has been attributed to release due to pre-seismic stress or fracturing of the rock. One of these gases is ], produced by radioactive decay of the trace amounts of uranium present in most rock.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=333}}.</ref> Radon is potentially useful as an earthquake predictor because it is radioactive and thus easily detected,{{efn|1=Giampaolo Giuiliani's claimed prediction of the ] earthquake was based on monitoring of radon levels.}} and its short ] (3.8 days) makes radon levels sensitive to short-term fluctuations.
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>"... there is growing empirical evidence that precursors exist."</big>
	|source= — Frank Evison, 1999<ref>{{Harvnb|Evison|1999}}, p. 769.</ref>
	}}
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>"The search for diagnostic precursors has thus far been unsuccessful."</big>
	|source= — ICEF, 2011<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011}}, p. 338.</ref>
	}}
	An earthquake precursor could be any anomalous phenomena that can give effective warning of the imminence or severity of an impending earthquake in a given area.<ref>The IASPEI Sub-Commission for Earthquake Prediction defined a precursor as "a quantitatively measurable change in an environmental parameter that occurs before mainshocks, and that is thought to be linked to the preparation process for this mainshock." {{Harvnb|Console|2001|loc=§2}}</ref> Reports of premonitory phenomena – though generally recognized as such only after the event – number in the thousands,<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|p=429}}, §3.</ref> some dating back to antiquity.<ref>E.g., ], in ''De natura animalium, book 11'', commenting on the destruction of ] in 373 BC, but writing five centuries later.</ref> In the scientific literature there have been around 400 reports of possible precursors, of roughly twenty different types.<ref>{{Harvnb|Rikitake|1979|p=294}}. {{Harvnb|Cicerone|Ebel|Britton|2009}} has a more recent compilation</ref> running the gamut "from ] to ]".<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|2004|p=335}}.</ref> But the search for reliable precursors has yet to have a convincing success.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Geller|1997|p=425}}: "Extensive searches have failed to find reliable precursors." {{Harvtxt|Jackson|2004|p=348}}: "The search for precursors has a checkered history, with no convincing successes." {{Harvtxt|Zechar|Jordan|2008|p=723}}: "The consistent failure to find reliable earthquake precursors...". {{Harvtxt|ICEF|2009}}: "... no convincing evidence of diagnostic precursors."</ref> When (early 1990s) the IASPEI solicited nominations for a "Preliminary List of Significant Precursors" 40 nominations were made; five were selected as ''possible'' significant precursors, with two of those based on a single observation each.<ref>{{Harvnb|Wyss|Booth|1997|p=424}}.</ref>
			A 2009 compilation<ref>{{Harvnb|Cicerone|Ebel|Britton|2009|p=382}}.</ref> listed 125 reports of changes in radon emissions prior to 86 earthquakes since 1966. The International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) however found in its 2011 critical review that the earthquakes with which these changes are supposedly linked were up to a thousand kilometers away, months later, and at all magnitudes. In some cases the anomalies were observed at a distant site, but not at closer sites. The ICEF found "no significant correlation".<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=334}}; {{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=93–95}}.</ref>
	After a critical review of the scientific literature the ''International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection'' (ICEF) concluded in 2011 there was "considerable room for methodological improvements in this type of research."<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=338}}.</ref> Particularly: <blockquote> In many cases of purported precursory behavior, the reported observational data are contradictory and unsuitable for a rigorous statistical evaluation. One related problem is a bias towards publishing positive rather than negative results, so that the rate of false negatives (earthquake but no precursory signal) cannot be ascertained. A second is the frequent lack of baseline studies that establish noise levels in the observational time series.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=361}}.</ref></blockquote>
			==== Electromagnetic anomalies ====
	Although none of the following precursors are convincingly successful, they do illustrate both various kinds of phenomena which have been examined, and the optimism that generally attaches to any report of a possible precursor.
			{{further|Seismo-electromagnetics}}
			Observations of electromagnetic disturbances and their attribution to the earthquake failure process go back as far as the ] of 1755, but practically all such observations prior to the mid-1960s are invalid because the instruments used were sensitive to physical movement.<ref>{{Harvnb|Johnston|2002|p=621}}.</ref> Since then various anomalous electrical, electric-resistive, and magnetic phenomena have been attributed to precursory stress and strain changes that precede earthquakes,<ref>{{Harvnb|Park|1996|p=493}}.</ref> raising hopes for finding a reliable earthquake precursor.<ref>See {{Harvnb|Geller|1996a}} and {{Harvnb|Geller|1996b}} for some history of these hopes.</ref> While a handful of researchers have gained much attention with either theories of how such phenomena might be generated, claims of having observed such phenomena prior to an earthquake, no such phenomena has been shown to be an actual precursor.
			A 2011 review by the ''International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection'' (ICEF)<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=335}}.</ref> found the "most convincing" electromagnetic precursors to be ] magnetic anomalies, such as the Corralitos event (discussed below) recorded before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. However, it is now believed that observation was a system malfunction. Study of the closely monitored 2004 Parkfield earthquake found no evidence of precursory electromagnetic signals of any type; further study showed that earthquakes with magnitudes less than 5 do not produce significant transient signals.<ref>{{Harvnb|Park|Dalrymple|Larsen|2007|loc=paragraphs 1 and 32}}. See also {{Harvnb|Johnston|Sasai|Egbert|Mueller|2006|p=S218}} "no VAN-type SES observed" and {{Harvnb|Kappler|Morrison|Egbert|2010}} "no effects found that can be reasonably characterized as precursors".</ref> The ICEF considered the search for useful precursors to have been unsuccessful.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|loc=Summary|p=335}}.</ref>
	==== Animal behavior ====
	There are many accounts of unusual phenomena prior to an earthquake, especially reports of anomalous animal behavior. One of the earliest is from the Roman writer ] concerning the destruction of the Greek city of ] by earthquake and tsunami in 373 BC: <blockquote> For five days before Helike disappeared, all the mice and martens and snakes and centipedes and beetles and every other creature of that kind in the city left in a body by the road that leads to Keryneia. ... But after these creatures had departed, an earthquake occurred in the night; the city subsided; an immense wave flooded and Helike disappeared....<ref>From ''De natura animalium, book 11'', quoted by Roger Pearse at . See also .</ref> </blockquote>
			===== VAN seismic electric signals =====
	Aelianus wrote this in the Second Century, some 500 years after the event, so his somewhat fantastical account is necessarily about the myth that developed, not an eyewitness account.<ref>As an illustration of how myths develop: the destruction of ] is thought by some to be the origin of the story of ].</ref>
			{{Main|VAN method}}
			<!-- NOTE TO EDITORS: this section is for describing electromagnetic anomalies as possible precursors. It is *not* the place for a critical assessment, or even a full description, of the VAN method, other than as relates to "SES", lest this section becomes bloated and out of proportion to the weight of the other sections. -->
			The most touted, and most criticized, claim of an electromagnetic precursor is the ] of physics professors ], Kessar Alexopoulos and Konstantine Nomicos (VAN) of the ]. In a 1981 paper<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|Nomicos|1981}}, described by {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992|p=32}}, and {{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b|loc=§3.3.1|p=512}}.</ref> they claimed that by measuring geoelectric voltages – what they called "seismic electric signals" (SES) – they could predict earthquakes.{{efn|1=Over time the claim was modified. See ] for more details.}}
			In 1984, they claimed there was a "one-to-one correspondence" between SES and earthquakes<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|1984b|p=100}}.</ref> – that is, that "''every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES'' and inversely ''every SES is always followed by an EQ'' the magnitude and the ] of which can be reliably predicted"<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|1984b|p=120}}. Italicization from the original.</ref> – the SES appearing between 6 and 115 hours before the earthquake. As proof of their method they claimed a series of successful predictions.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|1984b|loc=Table 3|p=117}}; {{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|Nomicos|Lazaridou|1986}}; {{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|1991|loc=Table 3|p=341}}; {{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|Eftaxias|Antonopoulos|1996a|loc=Table 3|p=55}}. These are examined in more detail in ].</ref>
	Scientific observation of such phenomena is limited because of the difficulty of performing an experiment, let alone repeating one. Yet there was a fortuitous case in 1992: some biologists just happened to be studying the behavior of an ant colony when the Landers earthquake struck just 100&nbsp;km (60&nbsp;mi) away. Despite severe ground shaking, the ants seemed oblivious to the quake itself, as well as to any precursors.<ref>{{Harvnb|Lighton|Duncan|2005}}.</ref>
			Although their report was "saluted by some as a major breakthrough",{{efn|1=One enthusiastic supporter (Uyeda) was reported as saying "VAN is the biggest invention since the time of Archimedes".<ref>{{Harvnb|Chouliaras|Stavrakakis|1999|p=223}}.</ref>}} among seismologists it was greeted by a "wave of generalized skepticism".<ref>{{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992|p=32}}.</ref> In 1996, a paper VAN submitted to the journal ] was given an unprecedented public peer-review by a broad group of reviewers, with the paper and reviews published in a special issue;<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1996b}}; {{cite journal|title=Table of contents|journal=Geophysical Research Letters|volume=23|issue=11|date=27 May 1996|doi=10.1002/grl.v23.11}}</ref> the majority of reviewers found the methods of VAN to be flawed. Additional criticism was raised the same year in a public debate between some of the principals.<ref>The proceedings were published as ''A Critical Review of VAN'' {{Harv|Lighthill|1996}}. See {{Harvtxt|Jackson|Kagan|1998}} for a summary critique.</ref>{{efn|1=A short overview of the debate can be found in an exchange of letters in the June 1998 issue of ''Physics Today''.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1998}}; {{Harvnb|Anagnostopoulos|1998}}.</ref>}}
	In an earlier study, researchers monitored rodent colonies at two seismically active locations in California. In the course of the study there were several moderate quakes, and there was anomalous behavior. However, the latter was coincident with other factors; no connection with an earthquake could be shown.<ref>{{Harvnb|Lindberg|Skiles|Hayden|1981}}.</ref>
			A primary criticism was that the method is geophysically implausible and scientifically unsound.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1996a|p=1324}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|1996b|p=1365}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|1998}}; {{Harvnb|Stiros|1997|p=478}}.</ref> Additional objections included the demonstrable falsity of the claimed one-to-one relationship of earthquakes and SES,<ref>{{Harvnb|Drakopoulos|Stavrakakis|Latoussakis|1993|pp=223, 236}}; {{Harvnb|Stavrakakis|Drakopoulos|1996}}; {{Harvnb|Wyss|1996|p=1301}}.</ref> the unlikelihood of a precursory process generating signals stronger than any observed from the actual earthquakes,<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|1996b|p=1365}}; {{Harvnb|Gruszow|Rossignol|Tzanis|Le Mouël|1996|p=2027}}.</ref> and the very strong likelihood that the signals were man-made.<ref>{{Harvnb|Gruszow|Rossignol|Tzanis|Le Mouël|1996|p=2025}}.</ref>{{efn|1=For example the VAN "IOA" station was next to an antenna park, and the station at Pirgos, where most of the 1980s predictions were derived, was found to lie over the buried grounding grid of a military radio transmitter. VAN has not distinguished their "seismic electric signals" from artificial electromagnetic noise or from radio-telecommunication and industrial sources.<ref>{{Harvnb|Chouliaras|Stavrakakis|1999}}; {{Harvnb|Pham|Boyer|Chouliaras|Le Mouël|1998|pp=2025, 2028}}; {{Harvnb|Pham|Boyer|Le Mouël|Chouliaras|1999}}.</ref>}} Further work in Greece has tracked SES-like "anomalous transient electric signals" back to specific human sources, and found that such signals are not excluded by the criteria used by VAN to identify SES.<ref>{{Harvnb|Pham|Boyer|Chouliaras|Savvaidis|2002}}.</ref> More recent work, by employing modern methods of statistical physics, i.e., detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA), multifractal DFA and wavelet transform revealed that SES are clearly distinguished from signals produced by man made sources.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Sarlis|Skordas|2003a}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Sarlis|Skordas|2003b}}</ref>
	Given these results one might wonder about the many reports of precursory anomalous animal behavior following major earthquakes. Such reports are often given wide exposure by the major media, and almost universally cast in the form of animals ''predicting'' the subsequent earthquake, often with the suggestion of some "sixth sense" or other unknown power.<ref>ABC News reported: "Sixth Sense? Zoo Animals Sensed Quake Early". {{Harvnb|Miller|Patrick|Capatides|2011}}</ref> However, it is extremely important to note the time element: ''how much'' warning? For earthquakes radiate multiple kinds of seismic waves. The ] travel through the earth's crust about twice as fast as the ], so they arrive first. The greater the distance, the greater the delay between them. For an earthquake strong enough to be felt over several hundred kilometers (approximately M > 5) this can amount to some tens of seconds difference. The P waves are also weaker, and often unnoticed by people. Thus the signs of alarm reported in the animals at the ], some five to ten seconds prior to the shaking from the M 5.8 ], was undoubtably prompted by the p-waves. This was not so much a prediction as a warning of shaking from an earthquake that has already happened.<ref>
	According to a press release from the Zoo (, August 23, 2011; see also {{Harvnb|Miller|Patrick|Capatides|2011}} ) most of the activity was co-seismic. It was also reported that the red lemurs "called out 15 minutes before the quake", which would be well before the arrival of the p waves. Lacking any other details it is impossible to say whether the lemur activity was in any way connected with the quake, or was merely a chance activity that was given significance for happening just before the quake, a failing typical of such reports.</ref>
			The validity of the VAN method, and therefore the predictive significance of SES, was based primarily on the empirical claim of demonstrated predictive success.<ref>{{Harvnb|Stiros|1997|p=481}}.</ref> Numerous weaknesses have been uncovered in the VAN methodology,{{efn|1=For example it has been shown that the VAN predictions are more likely to follow an earthquake than to precede one. It seems that where there have been recent shocks the VAN personnel are more likely to interpret the usual electrical variations as SES. The tendency for earthquakes to cluster then accounts for an increased chance of an earthquake in the rather broad prediction window. Other aspects of this will be discussed below.}} and in 2011 the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection concluded that the prediction capability claimed by VAN could not be validated.<ref name=":5">{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|pp=335–336}}.</ref> Most seismologists consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked".<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|p=195}}.</ref> On the other hand, the Section "Earthquake Precursors and Prediction" of "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics: part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series" (Springer 2011) ends as follows (just before its summary): "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain "natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data".<ref name=":6">{{Harvnb|Uyeda|Nagao|Kamogawa|2011}}</ref>
	As to reports of longer-term anticipations, these are rarely amenable to any kind of study.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Geller|1997|p=432}} calls such reports "doubly dubious": they fail to distinguish precursory behavior from ordinary behavior, and also depend on human observers who have just undergone a traumatic experience.</ref> There was an intriguing story in the 1980s that spikes in lost pet advertisements in the ] portended an increased chance of an earthquake within 70 miles of downtown ]. This was a very testable hypothesis, being based on quantifiable, objective, publicly available data, and it was tested by {{Harvtxt|Schaal|1988}} – who found no correlation. Another study looked at reports of anomalous animal behavior reported to a hotline ''prior'' to an earthquake, but found no significant increase that could be correlated with a subsequent earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Otis|Kautz|1979}}.</ref>
			Since 2001, the VAN group has introduced a concept they call "natural time", applied to the analysis of their precursors. Initially it is applied on SES to distinguish them from ] and relate them to a possible impending earthquake. In case of verification (classification as "SES activity"), ] is additionally applied to the general subsequent seismicity of the area associated with the SES activity, in order to improve the time parameter of the prediction. The method treats earthquake onset as a ].<ref>Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2002;{{full citation needed|date=May 2020}} Varotsos 2006.{{full citation needed|date=May 2020}}; {{Harvnb|Rundle|Holliday|Graves|Turcotte|2012}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Huang|2015}}.</ref> A review of the updated VAN method in 2020 says that it suffers from an abundance of false positives and is therefore not usable as a prediction protocol.<ref name="auto">{{Harvnb|Helman|2020}}</ref> VAN group answered by pinpointing misunderstandings in the specific reasoning.<ref>{{Harvnb|Sarlis|Skordas|Christopoulos|Varotsos|2020}}</ref>
	After reviewing the scientific literature the ICEF concluded in 2011 that <blockquote> there is no credible scientific evidence that animals display behaviors indicative of earthquake-related environmental disturbances that are unobservable by the physical and chemical sensor systems available to earthquake scientists.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=336}}.</ref> </blockquote>
	==== Changes in Vp/Vs ====		===== Corralitos anomaly =====
			Probably the most celebrated seismo-electromagnetic event ever, and one of the most frequently cited examples of a possible earthquake precursor, is the 1989 Corralitos anomaly.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010|pp=131–133}}; {{Harvnb|Thomas|Love|Johnston|2009}}.</ref> In the month prior to the ], measurements of the ] at ultra-low frequencies by a ] in ], just 7&nbsp;km from the epicenter of the impending earthquake, started showing anomalous increases in amplitude. Just three hours before the quake, the measurements soared to about thirty times greater than normal, with amplitudes tapering off after the quake. Such amplitudes had not been seen in two years of operation, nor in a similar instrument located 54&nbsp;km away. To many people such apparent locality in time and space suggested an association with the earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser-Smith|Bernardi|McGill|Ladd|1990| p=1467}} called it "encouraging".</ref>
	''V''<sub>p</sub> is the symbol for the velocity of a seismic "P" (primary or pressure) wave passing through rock, while ''V''<sub>s</sub> is the symbol for the velocity of the "S" (secondary or shear) wave. Small-scale laboratory experiments have shown that the ratio of these two velocities – represented as ''V''<sub>p</sub>/''V''<sub>s</sub> – changes when rock is near the point of fracturing. In the 1970s it was considered a significant success and likely breakthrough when Russian seismologists reported observing such changes in the region of a subsequent earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hammond|1973}}. Additional references in {{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc= §2.4}}.</ref> This effect, as well as other possible precursors, has been attributed to ''dilatancy'', where rock stressed to near its breaking point expands (dilates) slightly.<ref>{{Harvnb|Scholz|Sykes|Aggarwal|1973}}; {{Harvnb|Smith|1975a}}.</ref>
			Additional magnetometers were subsequently deployed across northern and southern California, but after ten years and several large earthquakes, similar signals have not been observed. More recent studies have cast doubt on the connection, attributing the Corralitos signals to either unrelated magnetic disturbance<ref>{{Harvnb|Campbell|2009}}.</ref> or, even more simply, to sensor-system malfunction.<ref>{{Harvnb|Thomas|Love|Johnston|2009}}.</ref>
	Study of this phenomena near ] led to a ] in 1973.<ref>{{Harvnb|Aggarwal|Sykes|Simpson|Richards|1975}}.</ref> However, additional successes there have not followed, and it has been suggested that the prediction was only a lucky fluke.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|p=110}}.</ref> A ''V''<sub>p</sub>/''V''<sub>s</sub> anomaly was the basis of ] of a M 5.5 to 6.5 earthquake near Los Angeles, which failed to occur.<ref>{{Harvnb|Allen|1983|p=79}}; {{Harvnb|Whitcomb|1977}}.</ref> Other studies relying on quarry blasts (more precise, and repeatable) found no such variations;<ref>{{Harvnb|McEvilly|Johnson|1974}}.</ref> and an alternative explanation has been reported for such variations as have been observed.<ref>{{Harvnb|Lindh|Lockner|Lee|1978}}.</ref> {{Harvtxt|Geller|1997}} noted that reports of significant velocity changes have ceased since about 1980.
	====Radon emissions====		===== Freund physics =====
			In his investigations of crystalline physics, Friedemann Freund found that water molecules embedded in rock can dissociate into ions if the rock is under intense stress. The resulting charge carriers can generate battery currents under certain conditions. Freund suggested that perhaps these currents could be responsible for earthquake precursors such as electromagnetic radiation, earthquake lights and disturbances of the plasma in the ionosphere.<ref>{{Harvnb|Freund|2000}}.</ref> The study of such currents and interactions is known as "Freund physics".<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=133–135}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Heraud|Centa|Bleier|2015}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Enriquez|2015}}.</ref>
	Most rock contains small amount of gases that can be isotopically distinguished from the normal atmospheric gases. There are reports of spikes in the concentrations of such gases prior to a major earthquake; this has been attributed to release due to pre-seismic stress or fracturing of the rock. One of these gases is ], produced by radioactive decay of the trace amounts of uranium present in most rock.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=333}}. For a fuller account of radon as an earthquake precursor see {{Harvnb|Immè|Morelli|2012}}.</ref>
			Most seismologists reject Freund's suggestion that stress-generated signals can be detected and put to use as precursors, for a number of reasons. First, it is believed that stress does not accumulate rapidly before a major earthquake, and thus there is no reason to expect large currents to be rapidly generated. Secondly, seismologists have extensively searched for statistically reliable electrical precursors, using sophisticated instrumentation, and have not identified any such precursors. And thirdly, water in the Earth's crust would cause any generated currents to be absorbed before reaching the surface.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=137–139}}.</ref>
	Radon is attractive as a potential earthquake predictor because being radioactive it is easily detected,<ref>Giampaolo Giuiliani's claimed prediction of the ] earthquake was based on monitoring of radon levels.</ref> and its short ] (3.8 days) makes it sensitive to short-term fluctuations. A 2009 review<ref>{{Harvnb|Cicerone|Ebel|Britton|2009|p=382}}.</ref> found 125 reports of changes in radon emissions prior to 86 earthquakes since 1966. But as the ICEF found in its review, the earthquakes with which these changes are supposedly linked were up to a thousand kilometers away, months later, and at all magnitudes. In some cases the anomalies were observed at a distant site, but not at closer sites. The ICEF found "no significant correlation".<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=334}}. See also {{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=93–95}}.</ref> Another review concluded that in some cases changes in radon levels preceded an earthquake, but a correlation is not yet firmly established.<ref>{{Harvnb|Immè|Morelli|2012|p=158}}.</ref>
			====== Disturbance of the daily cycle of the ionosphere ======
	====Electro-magnetic variations====
			]. The anomaly is indicated in red.]]
	Various attempts have been made to identify possible pre-seismic variations in various electrical, electric-resistive, or magnetic phenomena.<ref>{{Harvnb|Park|1996}}.</ref>
			The ] usually develops its lower ] during the day, while at night this layer disappears as the ] there turns to ]. During the night, the ] of the ionosphere remains formed, in higher altitude than D layer. A ] for low ] radio frequencies up to 10&nbsp;MHz is formed during the night (] propagation) as the F layer reflects these waves back to the Earth. The skywave is lost during the day, as the D layer absorbs these waves.
	It was reported that the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was preceded by disturbances in the background ] strength as measured by a sensor placed in ], about {{convert|4.5|mi|0}} from the epicenter.<ref name="Fraser-Smith"/> From October 5, a substantial increase in background noise was measured in the frequency range 0.01–10&nbsp;Hz.<ref name="Fraser-Smith"/> The measurement instrument was a single-axis search-coil ] that was being used for low frequency research by Antony C. Fraser-Smith of ].<ref name="Fraser-Smith"/> Signals in the range .01–.5&nbsp;Hz rose to exceptionally high levels about three hours before the earthquake.<ref name="Fraser-Smith">{{cite journal |doi=10.1029/GL017i009p01465 |first1=Antony C. |last1=Fraser-Smith |first2=A. |last2=Bernardi |first3=P. R. |last3=McGill |first4=M. E. |last4=Ladd |first5=R. A. |last5=Helliwell |first6=O. G. |last6=Villard, Jr. |year=1990 |month=August |title=Low-Frequency Magnetic Field Measurements Near the Epicenter of the M<sub>s</sub> 7.1 Loma Prieta Earthquake |journal=] |volume=17 |issue=9 |pages=1465–1468 |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |issn=0094-8276 |oclc=1795290 |accessdate=December 18, 2010 |url=http://ee.stanford.edu/~acfs/LomaPrietaPaper.pdf |bibcode=1990GeoRL..17.1465F}}</ref> Though this pattern gave scientists new ideas for research into potential ] to earthquakes, more recent studies have cast doubt on the connection, attributing the observations before the Loma Prieta quake to either an unrelated and more geographically widespread magnetic disturbance<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Campbell | first1 = W. H. | title = Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors, preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake | journal = Journal of Geophysical Research | volume = 114 | year = 2009 | issue = A5 | page = A05307 | doi = 10.1029/2008JA013932 | bibcode=2009JGRA..11405307C}}</ref> or to sensor malfunctions.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Thomas | first1 = J. N. | last2 = Love | first2 = J. J. | last3 = Johnston | first3 = M. J. S. | title = On the reported magnetic precursor of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake | doi = 10.1016/j.pepi.2008.11.014 | journal = Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors | volume = 173 | issue = 3–4 | pages = 207–215 | year = 2009 | month = April | bibcode=2009PEPI..173..207T}}</ref>
			Tectonic stresses in the Earth's crust are claimed to cause waves of electric charges<ref>{{Harvnb|Freund|Takeuchi|Lau|2006}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Freund|Sornette|2007}}.</ref> that travel to the surface of the Earth and affect the ionosphere.<ref>{{Harvnb|Freund|Kulahci|Cyr|Ling|2009}}.</ref> ]* recordings{{efn|1=The literature on geophysical phenomena and ionospheric disturbances uses the term ULF (Ultra Low Frequency) to describe the frequency band below 10 Hz. The band referred to as ULF on the Radio wave page corresponds to a different part of the spectrum frequency formerly referred to as VF (Voice Frequency). In this article the term ULF is listed as ULF*.}} of the daily cycle of the ionosphere indicate that the usual cycle could be disturbed a few days before a shallow strong earthquake. When the disturbance occurs, it is observed that either the D layer is lost during the day resulting to ionosphere elevation and skywave formation or the D layer appears at night resulting to lower of the ionosphere and hence absence of skywave.<ref>{{Harvnb|Eftaxias|Athanasopoulou|Balasis|Kalimeri|2009}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Eftaxias|Balasis|Contoyiannis|Papadimitriou|2010}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Tsolis|Xenos|2010}}.</ref>
	Another candidate method, widely criticized, is the VAN method of professors P. Varotsos, K. Alexopoulos and K. Nomicos – "VAN" – of the ]. In a 1981 paper<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|Nomicos|1981}}, described by {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992}}, p. 32, and {{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b}}, §3.3.1, p. 512.</ref> they claimed that by measuring geoelectric voltages – what they called "seismic electric signals"(SES) – they could predict earthquakes of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to 7 hours beforehand. Later the claim changed to being able to predict earthquakes larger than magnitude 5, within 100&nbsp;km of the epicentral location, within 0.7 units of magnitude, and in a 2-hour to 11-day time window.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|Nomicos|Lazaridou|1986}}.</ref> Subsequent papers claimed a series of successful predictions.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|Nomicos|Lazaridou|1986}}; {{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|1991}}.</ref> Despite these claims, the VAN group generated intense public criticism in the 1980s by issuing telegram warnings, a large number of which were false alarms.
			Science centers have developed a network of VLF transmitters and receivers on a global scale that detect changes in skywave. Each receiver is also daisy transmitter for distances of 1000–10,000 kilometers and is operating at different frequencies within the network. The general area under excitation can be determined depending on the density of the network.<ref>{{Harvnb|Rozhnoi|Solovieva|Molchanov|Schwingenschuh|2009}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Biagi|Maggipinto|Righetti|Loiacono|2011}}.</ref> It was shown on the other hand that global extreme events like magnetic storms or solar flares and local extreme events in the same VLF path like another earthquake or a volcano eruption that occur in near time with the earthquake under evaluation make it difficult or impossible to relate changes in skywave to the earthquake of interest.<ref>{{Harvnb|Politis|Potirakis|Hayakawa|2020}}</ref>
	Objections have been raised that the physics of the claimed process is not possible. For example, none of the earthquakes which VAN claimed were preceded by SES generated SES themselves, as would have been expected. Further, an analysis of the ] properties of SES in the Earth’s crust showed that it would have been impossible for signals with the ] reported by VAN to have been generated by small earthquakes and transmitted over the several hundred kilometers distances from the ] to the monitoring station.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bernard|1992}}; {{Harvnb|Bernard|LeMouel|1996}}.</ref>
			In 2017, an article in the ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' showed that the relationship between ionospheric anomalies and large seismic events (M≥6.0) occurring globally from 2000 to 2014 was based on the presence of solar weather. When the solar data are removed from the time series, the correlation is no longer statistically significant.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Thomas |first1=JN |last2=Huard |first2=J |last3=Masci |first3=F |title=Thomas, J. N., Huard, J., & Masci, F. (2017). A statistical study of global ionospheric map total electron content changes prior to occurrences of M≥ 6.0 earthquakes during 2000–2014 |journal=Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics |date=2017 |volume=122 |issue=2 |pages=2151–2161 |doi=10.1002/2016JA023652 |s2cid=132455032 |ref=Thomas et al 2017|doi-access=free }}</ref> A subsequent article in ''Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors'' in 2020 shows that solar weather and ionospheric disturbances are a potential cause to trigger large earthquakes based on this statistical relationship. The proposed mechanism is electromagnetic induction from the ionosphere to the fault zone. Fault fluids are conductive, and can produce ]s at depth. The resulting change in the local magnetic field in the fault triggers dissolution of minerals and weakens the rock, while also potentially changing the groundwater chemistry and level. After the seismic event, different minerals may be precipitated thus changing groundwater chemistry and level again.<ref name="auto"/> This process of mineral dissolution and precipitation before and after an earthquake has been observed in Iceland.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Andrén |first1=Margareta |last2=Stockmann |first2=Gabrielle |last3=Skelton |first3=Alasdair |title=Coupling between mineral reactions, chemical changes in groundwater, and earthquakes in Iceland |journal=Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth |date=2016 |volume=121 |issue=4 |pages=2315–2337 |doi=10.1002/2015JB012614 |bibcode=2016JGRB..121.2315A |s2cid=131535687 |ref=Andrén et al 2016|doi-access=free }}</ref> This model makes sense of the ionospheric, seismic and groundwater data.
	Several authors have pointed out that VAN’s publications are characterized by not accounting for (identifying and eliminating) the possible sources of ] (EMI) to their measuring system. Taken as a whole, the VAN method has been criticized as lacking consistency while doing statistical testing of the validity of their hypotheses.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992}}; {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1996}}; {{Harvnb|Wyss|1996}}; {{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b}}.</ref> In particular, there has been some contention over which catalog of seismic events to use in vetting predictions. This catalog switching can be used to conclude that, for example, of 22 claims of successful prediction by VAN <ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|1991}}.</ref> 74% were false, 9% correlated at random and for 14% the correlation was uncertain.<ref>{{Harvnb|Wyss|Allmann|1996}}.</ref>
			====== Satellite observation of the expected ground temperature declination ======
	In 1996 the journal ] presented a debate on the statistical significance of the VAN method;<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1996}}.</ref> the majority of reviewers found the methods of VAN to be flawed, and the claims of successful predictions statistically insignificant.<ref>See the .</ref> In 2001, the VAN method was modified to include time series analysis, and Springer published an overview in 2011.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Sarlis|Skordas|2011}}.</ref> This updated method has not been critiqued or verified independently yet.
			]
			One way of detecting the mobility of tectonic stresses is to detect locally elevated ]s on the surface of the crust measured by ]s. During the evaluation process, the background of daily variation and ] due to atmospheric disturbances and human activities are removed before visualizing the concentration of trends in the wider area of a fault. This method has been experimentally applied since 1995.<ref>{{Harvnb|Filizzola|Pergola|Pietrapertosa|Tramutoli|2004}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Lisi|Filizzola|Genzano|Grimaldi|2010}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Pergola|Aliano|Coviello|Filizzola|2010}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Genzano|Aliano|Corrado|Filizzola|2009}}.</ref>
			In a newer approach to explain the phenomenon, ]'s Friedmann Freund has proposed that the ] captured by the satellites is not due to a real increase in the surface temperature of the crust. According to this version the emission is a result of the ] that occurs at the chemical re-bonding of ] carriers (]) which are traveling from the deepest layers to the surface of the crust at a speed of 200 meters per second. The electric charge arises as a result of increasing tectonic stresses as the time of the earthquake approaches. This emission extends superficially up to 500 x 500 square kilometers for very large events and stops almost immediately after the earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Freund|2010}}.</ref>
	{{further|VAN method}}
	In addition to terrestrial electro-magnetic variations, earthquake activity is correlated with some electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena. Notably, ionospheric disturbances producing electromagnetic signals precede some major seismic events by a few hours to days. These signal anomalies are small in magnitude and therefore difficult to study. A satellite launch is planned by China in 2014 to provide ionospheric data that may be compared with a ground-based seismic monitoring network, as part of China's earthquake program.<ref>{{Harvnb|Shen|Zhang|Wang|Chen|2011}}.</ref>
	=== Trends ===		=== Trends ===
	Instead of watching for anomalous phenomena that might be precursory signs of an impending earthquake, other approaches to predicting earthquakes look for trends or patterns that lead to an earthquake. As these trends may be complex and involve many variables, advanced statistical techniques are often needed to understand them, wherefore these are sometimes called statistical methods. These approaches also tend to be more probabilistic, and to have larger time periods, and so verge into earthquake forecasting.		Instead of watching for anomalous phenomena that might be precursory signs of an impending earthquake, other approaches to predicting earthquakes look for trends or patterns that lead to an earthquake. As these trends may be complex and involve many variables, advanced statistical techniques are often needed to understand them, therefore these are sometimes called statistical methods. These approaches also tend to be more probabilistic, and to have larger time periods, and so merge into earthquake forecasting.{{Citation needed|date=March 2020|reason=for 'more probabilistic', for 'larger periods' and for 'earthquake forecasting' adaptation better than earthquake prediction}}
			==== Nowcasting ====
			{{Other uses|Nowcasting (disambiguation){{!}}Nowcasting}}
			Earthquake ''nowcasting'', suggested in 2016<ref name=":7">{{Harvnb|Rundle|Turcotte|Donnellan|Ludwig|2016}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Rundle|Giguere|Turcotte|Crutchfield|2019}}</ref> is the estimate of the current dynamic state of a seismological system, based on ] introduced in 2001.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Sarlis|Skordas|2001}}</ref> It differs from forecasting which aims to estimate the probability of a future event<ref name=":8">{{Harvnb|Rundle|Luginbuhl|Giguere|Turcotte|2018b}}</ref> but it is also considered a potential base for forecasting.<ref name=":7"/><ref name=":9">{{Harvnb|Luginbuhl|Rundle|Turcotte|2019}}</ref> Nowcasting calculations produce the "earthquake potential score", an estimation of the current level of seismic progress.<ref>{{Harvnb|Pasari|2019}}</ref> Typical applications are: great global earthquakes and tsunamis,<ref>{{Harvnb|Rundle|Luginbuhl|Khapikova|Turcotte|2020}}</ref> aftershocks and induced seismicity,<ref name=":9"/><ref>{{Harvnb|Luginbuhl|Rundle|Hawkins|Turcotte|2018}}</ref> induced seismicity at gas fields,<ref>{{Harvnb|Luginbuhl|Rundle|Turcotte|2018b}}</ref> seismic risk to global megacities,<ref name=":8"/> studying of clustering of large global earthquakes,<ref>{{Harvnb|Luginbuhl|Rundle|Turcotte|2018a}}</ref> etc.
	==== Elastic rebound ====		==== Elastic rebound ====
	Even the stiffest of rock is not perfectly rigid. Given a large enough force (such as between two immense tectonic plates moving past each other) the earth's crust will bend or deform. What happens next is described by the ] theory of {{Harvtxt|Reid|1910}}: eventually the deformation (strain) becomes great enough that something breaks, usually at an existing fault. Slippage along the break (an earthquake) allows the rock on each side to rebound to a less deformed state, but now offset, and thereby accommodating inter-plate motion. In the process energy is released in various forms, including seismic waves.<ref>{{Harvnb|Reid|1910|p=22}}; {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=329}}.</ref> The cycle of tectonic force being accumulated in elastic deformation and released in a sudden rebound is then repeated. As the displacement from a single earthquake ranges from less than a meter to around 10 meters (for an M 8 quake),<ref>{{Harvnb|Wells|Coppersmith|1994|loc=Fig. 11, p. 993}}.</ref> the demonstrated existence of large ] displacements of hundreds of miles shows the existence of a long running earthquake cycle.<ref>{{Harvnb|Zoback|2006}} provides a clear explanation. {{Harvnb|Evans|1997|loc=§2.2}} also provides a description of the "self-organized criticality" (SOC) paradigm that is displacing the elastic rebound model.</ref>		Even the stiffest of rock is not perfectly rigid. Given a large force (such as between two immense tectonic plates moving past each other) the Earth's crust will bend or deform. According to the ] theory of {{Harvtxt|Reid|1910}}, eventually the deformation (strain) becomes great enough that something breaks, usually at an existing fault. Slippage along the break (an earthquake) allows the rock on each side to rebound to a less deformed state. In the process energy is released in various forms, including seismic waves.<ref>{{Harvnb|Reid|1910|p=22}}; {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=329}}.</ref> The cycle of tectonic force being accumulated in elastic deformation and released in a sudden rebound is then repeated. As the displacement from a single earthquake ranges from less than a meter to around 10 meters (for an M 8 quake),<ref>{{Harvnb|Wells|Coppersmith|1994|loc=Fig. 11|p=993}}.</ref> the demonstrated existence of large ] displacements of hundreds of miles shows the existence of a long running earthquake cycle.<ref>{{Harvnb|Zoback|2006}} provides a clear explanation.</ref>{{efn|1={{Harvtxt|Evans|1997|loc=§2.2}} provides a description of the "self-organized criticality" (SOC) paradigm that is displacing the elastic rebound model.}}
	==== Characteristic earthquakes ====		==== Characteristic earthquakes ====
	The most studied earthquake faults (such as the ] and ]) appear to have distinct segments. The ''characteristic earthquake'' model postulates that earthquakes are generally constrained within these segments. As the lengths and other characteristics<ref>These include the type of rock and fault geometry.</ref> of the segments are fixed, earthquakes that rupture the entire fault should have similar characteristics. These include the maximum magnitude (which is limited by the length of the rupture), and the amount of accumulated strain needed to rupture the fault segment. In that the strain accumulates steadily, it seems a fair inference that seismic activity on a given segment should be dominated by earthquakes of similar characteristics that recur at somewhat regular intervals.<ref>{{Harvnb|Schwartz|Coppersmith|1984}}; {{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.2|p=93}}.</ref> For a given fault segment, identifying these characteristic earthquakes and timing their recurrence rate should therefore inform us when to expect the next rupture; this is the approach generally used in forecasting seismic hazard.<ref>{{Harvnb|UCERF|2008}}.</ref>		The most studied earthquake faults (such as the ], the ], and the ]) appear to have distinct segments. The ''characteristic earthquake'' model postulates that earthquakes are generally constrained within these segments.<ref>{{Harvnb|Castellaro|2003}}.</ref> As the lengths and other properties{{efn|1=These include the type of rock and fault geometry.}} of the segments are fixed, earthquakes that rupture the entire fault should have similar characteristics. These include the maximum magnitude (which is limited by the length of the rupture), and the amount of accumulated strain needed to rupture the fault segment. Since continuous plate motions cause the strain to accumulate steadily, seismic activity on a given segment should be dominated by earthquakes of similar characteristics that recur at somewhat regular intervals.<ref>{{Harvnb|Schwartz|Coppersmith|1984}}; {{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.2|p=93}}.</ref> For a given fault segment, identifying these characteristic earthquakes and timing their recurrence rate (or conversely ]) should therefore inform us about the next rupture; this is the approach generally used in forecasting seismic hazard. ] is a notable example of such a forecast, prepared for the state of California.<ref>{{Harvnb|Field et al.|2008}}.</ref> Return periods are also used for forecasting other rare events, such as cyclones and floods, and assume that future frequency will be similar to observed frequency to date.
	This is essentially the basis of the ]: fairly similar earthquakes in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966 suggested a pattern of breaks every 21.9 years, with a standard deviation of ±3.1 years.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bakun|Lindh|1985|p=619}}. Of course these were not the only earthquakes in this period. The attentive reader will recall that, in seismically active areas, earthquakes of some magnitude happen fairly constantly. The "Parkfield earthquakes" are either the ones noted in the historical record, or were selected from the instrumental record on the basis of location and magnitude. {{Harvtxt|Jackson|Kagan|2006|p=S399}} and {{Harvtxt|Kagan|1997a|pp=211–212, 213}} argue that the selection parameters can bias the statistics, and that a sequences of four or six quakes, with different recurrence intervals, are also plausible.</ref> Extrapolation from the 1966 event led to a prediction of an earthquake around 1988, or before 1993 at the latest (at the 95% confidence interval).<ref>{{Harvnb|Bakun|Lindh|1985|p=621}}.</ref> The appeal of such a method is in being derived entirely from the ''trend'', which supposedly accounts for the unknown and possibly unknowable earthquake physics and fault parameters. However, in the Parkfield case the predicted earthquake did not occur until 2004, a decade late. This seriously undercuts the claim that earthquakes at Parkfield are quasi-periodic, and suggests they differ sufficiently in other respects to question whether they have distinct characteristics.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006|p=S408}} say the claim of quasi-periodicity is "baseless".</ref>		The idea of characteristic earthquakes was the basis of the ]: fairly similar earthquakes in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966 suggested a pattern of breaks every 21.9 years, with a standard deviation of ±3.1 years.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bakun|Lindh|1985|p=619}}.</ref>{{efn|1=Of course these were not the only earthquakes in this period. The attentive reader will recall that, in seismically active areas, earthquakes of some magnitude happen fairly constantly. The "Parkfield earthquakes" are either the ones noted in the historical record, or were selected from the instrumental record on the basis of location and magnitude. {{Harvtxt|Jackson|Kagan|2006|p=S399}} and {{Harvtxt|Kagan|1997|pp=211–212, 213}} argue that the selection parameters can bias the statistics, and that sequences of four or six quakes, with different recurrence intervals, are also plausible.}} Extrapolation from the 1966 event led to a prediction of an earthquake around 1988, or before 1993 at the latest (at the 95% confidence interval).<ref>{{Harvnb|Bakun|Lindh|1985|p=621}}.</ref> The appeal of such a method is that the prediction is derived entirely from the ''trend'', which supposedly accounts for the unknown and possibly unknowable earthquake physics and fault parameters. However, in the Parkfield case the predicted earthquake did not occur until 2004, a decade late. This seriously undercuts the claim that earthquakes at Parkfield are quasi-periodic, and suggests the individual events differ sufficiently in other respects to question whether they have distinct characteristics in common.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006|p=S408}} say the claim of quasi-periodicity is "baseless".</ref>
	The failure of the ] has raised doubt as to the validity of the characteristic earthquake model itself.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006}}.</ref> Some studies have questioned the various assumptions, including the key one that earthquakes are constrained within segments, and suggested that the "characteristic earthquakes" may be an artifact of selection bias and the shortness of seismological records (relative to earthquake cycles).<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1991|p=21,420}}; {{Harvnb|Stein|Friedrich|Newman|2005}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006}}; {{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.2}}, and references there; {{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|Geller|2012}}. See also the Nature debates.</ref> Other studies have considered whether other factors need to be considered, such as the age of the fault.<ref>Young faults are expected to have complex, irregular surfaces, which impedes slippage. In time these rough spots are ground off, changing the mechanical characteristics of the fault. {{Harvnb|Cowan|Nicol|Tonkin|1996}}; {{Harvnb|Stein|Newman|2004|p=185}}.</ref> Whether earthquake ruptures are more generally constrained within a segment (as is often seen), or break past segment boundaries (also seen), has a direct bearing on the degree of earthquake hazard: earthquakes are larger where multiple segments break, but in relieving more strain they will happen less often.<ref>{{Harvnb|Stein|Newman|2004}}</ref>		The failure of the ] has raised doubt as to the validity of the characteristic earthquake model itself.<ref name=":10">{{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006}}.</ref> Some studies have questioned the various assumptions, including the key one that earthquakes are constrained within segments, and suggested that the "characteristic earthquakes" may be an artifact of selection bias and the shortness of seismological records (relative to earthquake cycles).<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1991|pp=21, 420}}; {{Harvnb|Stein|Friedrich|Newman|2005}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006}}; {{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.2}}, and references there; {{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|Geller|2012}}; {{Harvnb|Main|1999}}.</ref> Other studies have considered whether other factors need to be considered, such as the age of the fault.{{efn|1=Young faults are expected to have complex, irregular surfaces, which impede slippage. In time these rough spots are ground off, changing the mechanical characteristics of the fault.<ref>{{Harvnb|Cowan|Nicol|Tonkin|1996}}; {{Harvnb|Stein|Newman|2004|p=185}}.</ref>}} Whether earthquake ruptures are more generally constrained within a segment (as is often seen), or break past segment boundaries (also seen), has a direct bearing on the degree of earthquake hazard: earthquakes are larger where multiple segments break, but in relieving more strain they will happen less often.<ref>{{Harvnb|Stein|Newman|2004}}.</ref>
	==== Seismic gaps ====		==== Seismic gaps ====
	At the contact where two tectonic plates slip past each other every section must eventually slip, as (in the long-term) none get left behind. But they do not all slip at the same time; different sections will be at different stages in the cycle of strain (deformation) accumulation and sudden rebound. In the seismic gap model the "next big quake" should be expected not in the segments where recent seismicity has relieved the strain, but in the intervening gaps where the unrelieved strain is the greatest.<ref>{{Harvnb|Scholz|2002|loc=§5.3.3|p=284}}; {{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1991|p=21,419}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006|p=S404}}.</ref> This model has an intuitive appeal; it is used in long-term forecasting, and was the basis of a series of circum-Pacific (]) forecasts in 1979 and 1989—1991.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1991|p=21,419}}; {{Harvnb|McCann|Nishenko|Sykes|Krause|1979}}; {{Harvnb|Rong|Jackson|Kagan|2003}}.</ref>		At the contact where two tectonic plates slip past each other every section must eventually slip, as (in the long-term) none get left behind. But they do not all slip at the same time; different sections will be at different stages in the cycle of strain (deformation) accumulation and sudden rebound. In the seismic gap model the "next big quake" should be expected not in the segments where recent seismicity has relieved the strain, but in the intervening gaps where the unrelieved strain is the greatest.<ref>{{Harvnb|Scholz|2002|loc=§5.3.3|p=284}}; {{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1991|pp=21, 419}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006|p=S404}}.</ref> This model has an intuitive appeal; it is used in long-term forecasting, and was the basis of a series of circum-Pacific (]) forecasts in 1979 and 1989–1991.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1991|pp=21, 419}}; {{Harvnb|McCann|Nishenko|Sykes|Krause|1979}}; {{Harvnb|Rong|Jackson|Kagan|2003}}.</ref>
	It has been asked: "How could such an obvious, intuitive model not be true?"<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|2006|p=S404}}.</ref> Possibly because some of the underlying assumptions are not correct. A close examination suggests that "there may be no information in seismic gaps about the time of occurrence or the magnitude of the next large event in the region";<ref>{{Harvnb|Lomnitz|Nava|1983}}.</ref> statistical tests of the circum-Pacific forecasts shows that the seismic gap model "did not forecast large earthquakes well".<ref>{{Harvnb|Rong|Jackson|Kagan|2003|p=23}}.</ref> Another study concluded: "The hypothesis of increased of earthquake potential after a long quiet period can be rejected with a large confidence."<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1991|loc=Summary}}.</ref>		However, some underlying assumptions about seismic gaps are now known to be incorrect. A close examination suggests that "there may be no information in seismic gaps about the time of occurrence or the magnitude of the next large event in the region";<ref>{{Harvnb|Lomnitz|Nava|1983}}.</ref> statistical tests of the circum-Pacific forecasts shows that the seismic gap model "did not forecast large earthquakes well".<ref>{{Harvnb|Rong|Jackson|Kagan|2003|p=23}}.</ref> Another study concluded that a long quiet period did not increase earthquake potential.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1991|loc=Summary}}.</ref>
	==== Seismicity patterns (M8, AMR) ====		==== Seismicity patterns ====
	{{anchor|M8}} {{anchor|PI}}		{{anchor|M8}} {{anchor|PI}}
	Various heuristically derived algorithms have been developed for predicting earthquakes. Probably the most widely known is the M8 family of algorithms (including the RTP method) developed under the leadership of ]. M8 issues a "Time of Increased Probability" (TIP) alarms for a large earthquake of a specified magnitude upon observing certain patterns of smaller earthquakes. TIPs generally cover large areas (up to a thousand kilometers across) for up to five years.<ref>See details in {{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.4}}.</ref> Such large parameters have made M8 controversial, as it is hard to determine whether any hits that happen were skillfully predicted, or only the result of chance.
			Various heuristically derived algorithms have been developed for predicting earthquakes. Probably the most widely known is the M8 family of algorithms (including the RTP method) developed under the leadership of ]. M8 issues a "Time of Increased Probability" (TIP) alarm for a large earthquake of a specified magnitude upon observing certain patterns of smaller earthquakes. TIPs generally cover large areas (up to a thousand kilometers across) for up to five years.<ref>See details in {{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.4}}.</ref> Such large parameters have made M8 controversial, as it is hard to determine whether any hits that happened were skillfully predicted, or only the result of chance.
	M8 gained considerable attention when the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes occurred within a TIP.<ref>{{Harvnb|CEPEC|2004a}}. The CEPEC said these two quakes were properly predicted, but this is questionable lacking documentation of pre-event publication. The point is important because M8 tends to generate many alarms, and without irrevocable pre-event publication of all alarms it is difficult to determine if there is a bias towards publishing only the successful results. Lack of reliable documentation regarding these predictions is also why they are not included in the list below.</ref> But a widely publicized TIP for an M 6.4 quake in Southern California in 2004 was not fulfilled, nor two other lesser known TIPs.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=142–149}}.</ref> A deep study of the RTP method in 2008 found that out of some twenty alarms only two could be considered hits (and one of those had a 60% chance of happening anyway).<ref>{{Harvnb|Zechar|2008|p=}}; {{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=145}}.</ref> It concluded that "RTP is not significantly different from a naïve method of guessing based on the historical rates seismicity."<ref>{{Harvnb|Zechar|2008|p=7}}. See also p. 26.</ref>
			M8 gained considerable attention when the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes occurred within a TIP.<ref name=":11">{{Harvnb|CEPEC|2004a}}.</ref> In 1999, Keilis-Borok's group published a claim to have achieved statistically significant intermediate-term results using their M8 and MSc models, as far as world-wide large earthquakes are regarded.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kossobokov|Romashkova|Keilis-Borok|Healy|1999}}.</ref> However, Geller et al.<ref name=":12">{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1997}}.</ref> are skeptical of prediction claims over any period shorter than 30 years. A widely publicized TIP for an M 6.4 quake in Southern California in 2004 was not fulfilled, nor two other lesser known TIPs.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=142–149}}.</ref> A deep study of the RTP method in 2008 found that out of some twenty alarms only two could be considered hits (and one of those had a 60% chance of happening anyway).<ref>{{Harvnb|Zechar|2008}}; {{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|p=145}}.</ref> It concluded that "RTP is not significantly different from a naïve method of guessing based on the historical rates seismicity."<ref>{{Harvnb|Zechar|2008|p=7}}. See also p. 26.</ref>
	{{anchor|AMR}}''Accelerating moment release'' (AMR, "moment" being a measurement of seismic energy), also known as time-to-failure analysis, or accelerating seismic moment release (ASMR), is based on observations that foreshock activity prior to a major earthquake not only increased, but increased at an exponential rate.<ref>{{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.1}}. {{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|loc=chapter 12}}, provides a good description.</ref> That is: a plot of the cumulative number of foreshocks gets steeper just before the main shock.
			{{anchor|AMR}}''Accelerating moment release'' (AMR, "moment" being a measurement of seismic energy), also known as time-to-failure analysis, or accelerating seismic moment release (ASMR), is based on observations that foreshock activity prior to a major earthquake not only increased, but increased at an exponential rate.<ref>{{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.1}}. {{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|loc=chapter 12}}, provides a good description.</ref> In other words, a plot of the cumulative number of foreshocks gets steeper just before the main shock.
	Following formulation by {{Harvtxt|Bowman|Quillon|Sammis|Sornette|1998}} into a testable hypothesis<ref>{{Harvnb|Hardebeck|Felzer|Michael|2008|loc=par. 6}}</ref> and a number of positive reports, AMR seemed to have a promising future.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=154–155}}.</ref> This despite several problems, including not being detected for all locations and events, and the difficulty of projecting an accurate occurrence time when the tail end of the curve gets steep.<ref>{{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.1, p. 93}}.</ref> But more rigorous testing has shown that apparent AMR trends likely result from how data fitting is done<ref>{{Harvtxt|Hardebeck|Felzer|Michael|2008|loc=§4}} show how suitable selection of parameters shows DMR: ''Decelerating'' Moment Release.</ref> and failing to account for spatiotemporal clustering of earthquakes,;<ref>{{Harvnb|Hardebeck|Felzer|Michael|2008|loc=par. 1, 73}}.</ref> the AMR trends are statistically insignificant. Interest in AMR (as judged by the number of peer-reviewed papers) is reported to have fallen off since 2004.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mignan|2011|loc=Abstract}}.</ref>
			Following formulation by {{Harvtxt|Bowman|Quillon|Sammis|Sornette|1998}} into a testable hypothesis,<ref>{{Harvnb|Hardebeck|Felzer|Michael|2008|loc=par. 6}}.</ref> and a number of positive reports, AMR seemed promising<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=154–155}}.</ref> despite several problems. Known issues included not being detected for all locations and events, and the difficulty of projecting an accurate occurrence time when the tail end of the curve gets steep.<ref>{{Harvnb|Tiampo|Shcherbakov|2012|loc=§2.1|p=93}}.</ref> But rigorous testing has shown that apparent AMR trends likely result from how data fitting is done,<ref>{{Harvnb|Hardebeck|Felzer|Michael|2008|loc=§4}} show how suitable selection of parameters shows "DMR": ''Decelerating'' Moment Release.</ref> and failing to account for spatiotemporal clustering of earthquakes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hardebeck|Felzer|Michael|2008|loc=par. 1, 73}}.</ref> The AMR trends are therefore statistically insignificant. Interest in AMR (as judged by the number of peer-reviewed papers) has fallen off since 2004.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mignan|2011|loc=Abstract}}.</ref>
	== Notable predictions ==
	<!-- Oops, can't find the source. Looking ...
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|quote= <big>The next ten years will probably see several successful
	short-term predictions of significant earthquakes.</big>
	|source= — Clarence R. Allen, 1976<ref>{{Harvnb|Allen|1976}}. Allen was President of
	the ]. </ref>
	|salign= right
	}}
	-->
	These are predictions, or claims of predictions, that are notable either scientifically or because of public notoriety, and claim a scientific or quasi-scientific basis, or invoke the authority of a scientist. To be judged successful a prediction must be a proper prediction, published ''before'' the predicted event, and the event must occur exactly within the specified time, location, and magnitude parameters. As many predictions are held confidentially, or published in obscure locations, and become notable only when they are claimed, there may be some selection bias in that hits get more attention than misses.
	===1973: Blue Mountain Lake, USA===		==== Machine learning ====
			Rouet-Leduc et al. (2019) reported having successfully trained a regression ] on acoustic time series data capable of identifying a signal emitted from fault zones that forecasts fault failure. Rouet-Leduc et al. (2019) suggested that the identified signal, previously assumed to be statistical noise, reflects the increasing emission of energy before its sudden release during a slip event. Rouet-Leduc et al. (2019) further postulated that their approach could bound fault failure times and lead to the identification of other unknown signals.<ref>{{Harvnb|Rouet-Leduc|Hulbert|Lubbers|Barros|2017}}.</ref> Due to the rarity of the most catastrophic earthquakes, acquiring representative data remains problematic. In response, Rouet-Leduc et al. (2019) have conjectured that their model would not need to train on data from catastrophic earthquakes, since further research has shown the seismic patterns of interest to be similar in smaller earthquakes.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.quantamagazine.org/artificial-intelligence-takes-on-earthquake-prediction-20190919/|title=Artificial Intelligence Takes on Earthquake Prediction|last1=Smart|first1=Ashley|website=Quanta Magazine|date=19 September 2019|access-date=2020-03-28}}</ref>
	{{anchor|Blue Mountain Lake}}{{anchor|BML}}
			Deep learning has also been applied to earthquake prediction. Although ] and ] describe the magnitude of earthquake aftershocks and their time-varying properties, the prediction of the "spatial distribution of aftershocks" remains an open research problem. Using the ] and ] software libraries, DeVries et al. (2018) trained a ] that achieved higher accuracy in the prediction of spatial distributions of earthquake aftershocks than the previously established methodology of Coulomb failure stress change. Notably, DeVries et al. (2018) reported that their model made no "assumptions about receiver plane orientation or geometry" and heavily weighted the change in ], "sum of the absolute values of the independent components of the stress-change tensor," and the von Mises yield criterion. DeVries et al. (2018) postulated that the reliance of their model on these physical quantities indicated that they might "control earthquake triggering during the most active part of the seismic cycle." For validation testing, DeVries et al. (2018) reserved 10% of positive training earthquake data samples and an equal quantity of randomly chosen negative samples.<ref>{{Harvnb|DeVries|Viégas|Wattenberg|Meade|2018}}.</ref>
	A team studying earthquake activity at ] (BML), New York, made a prediction on August 1, 1973, that "an earthquake of magnitude 2.5–3 would occur in a few days." And: "At 2310 UT on August 3, 1973, a magnitude 2.6 earthquake occurred at BML".<ref>{{Harvnb|Aggarwal|Sykes|Simpson|Richards|1975}}, p. 718. See also {{Harvnb|Smith|1975}} and {{Harvnb|Scholz|Sykes|Aggarwal|1973}}.</ref> According to the authors, this is the first time the approximate time, place, and size of an earthquake were successfully predicted in the United States.<ref>{{Harvnb|Aggarwal|Sykes|Simpson|Richards|1975}}, p. 719. The statement is ambiguous as to whether this was the first such success by any method, or the first by the method they used.</ref>
			Arnaud Mignan and Marco Broccardo have similarly analyzed the application of artificial neural networks to earthquake prediction. They found in a review of literature that earthquake prediction research utilizing artificial neural networks has gravitated towards more sophisticated models amidst increased interest in the area. They also found that neural networks utilized in earthquake prediction with notable success rates were matched in performance by simpler models. They further addressed the issues of acquiring appropriate data for training neural networks to predict earthquakes, writing that the "structured, tabulated nature of earthquake catalogues" makes transparent machine learning models more desirable than artificial neural networks.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mignan|Broccardo|2019}}.</ref>
	It has been suggested that the pattern they observed may have been a statistical fluke, that just happened to get out in front of a chance earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b}}, p. 110.</ref> It seems significant that there has never been a second prediction from Blue Mountain Lake; this prediction now appears to be largely discounted.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Suzuki|1982|p=244}} cites several studies that did not find the phenomena reported by Aggarwal ''et al''. See also {{Harvtxt|Turcotte|1991}}, who says (p. 266): "The general consensus today is that the early observations were an optimistic interpretation of a noisy signal."</ref>
			==== EMP induced seismicity ====
	{{quote box
			High energy ]s can ] within 2–6 days after the emission by EMP generators.<ref>{{Harvnb|Tarasov|Tarasova|2009}}</ref> It has been proposed that strong EM impacts could control seismicity, as the seismicity dynamics that follow appear to be a lot more regular than usual.<ref>{{Harvnb|Novikov|Okunev|Klyuchkin|Liu|2017}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Zeigarnik|Novikov|Avagimov|Tarasov|2007}}</ref>
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big> Earthquake prediction ... appears to be on the verge of practical reality....</big>
	|source= — {{Harvnb|Scholz|Sykes|Aggarwal|1973}}
	}}
	=== 1974: Hollister, USA ===		== Notable predictions ==
			These are predictions, or claims of predictions, that are notable either scientifically or because of public notoriety, and claim a scientific or quasi-scientific basis. As many predictions are held confidentially, or published in obscure locations, and become notable only when they are claimed, there may be a ] in that hits get more attention than misses. The predictions listed here are discussed in Hough's book<ref name=":3"/> and Geller's paper.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=§4}}.</ref>
	On the evening of 27 November 1974, Malcolm Johnston described to an informal group of earth scientists some data collected near ], showing deformation of the earth's surface such as might portend an earthquake. Asked when this might happen colleague John H. Healy jested: "Maybe tomorrow."<ref>{{Harvnb|Hammond|1975|p=419}}.</ref> The timing could not have been better, as the next day (Thanksgiving) there was an M 5.2 earthquake near Hollister.
	Though described as successful, this informal statement was not made as a prediction,<ref>Predictions need to be declared as such beforehand so they cannot be adjusted retrospectively.</ref> and fell short as a prediction: it was indefinite in regards of time (''maybe'' "tomorrow" — or maybe a decade later?) and magnitude. Yet this expectation was significant, as it was prompted by observation of two kinds of possible precursors (tilt and geomagnetic), and there was a sense that had they been able to process their data sooner they might have been able make a formal prediction. Later a third possible (although somewhat doubtful) precursor (a Vp/Vs variation) was discovered. That three possible precursors seemed to be in accord was considered "most encouraging" at the USGS.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hamilton|1976|p=7}}.</ref> Coupled with the success at Blue Mountain Lake a year earlier and the reports from Haicheng six months later, this fostered much optimism among earth scientists in the late 1970s that short-term earthquake prediction would soon be attainable. This prompted a conference in 1975 to consider the public policy implications of earthquake forecasts in the United States.<ref>{{Harvnb|USGS Circular 729|1976}}.</ref>
	===1975: Haicheng, China===		=== 1975: Haicheng, China ===
	{{anchor|Haicheng}}		{{anchor|Haicheng}}
	The M 7.3 Haicheng (China) earthquake of 4 February 1975 is the most widely cited "success" of earthquake prediction,<ref>E.g.: {{Harvnb|Davies|1975}}; {{Harvnb|Whitham|Berry|Heidebrecht|Kanasewich|1976}}, p. 265; {{Harvnb|Hammond|1976}}; {{Harvnb|Ward|1978}}; {{Harvnb|Kerr|1979}}, p. 543; {{Harvnb|Allen|1982}}, p. S332; {{Harvnb|Rikitake|1982}}; {{Harvnb|Zoback|1983}}; {{Harvnb|Ludwin|2001}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|2004}}, p. 335; {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011}}, pp. 328, 351.</ref> and cited as such in several textbooks.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|2004}}, p. 344.</ref> The putative story is that study of seismic activity in the region lead the Chinese authorities to issue both a medium-term prediction in June, 1974, and, following a number of foreshocks up to M 4.7 the previous day, a short-term prediction on February 4 that large earthquake might occur within one to two days. The political authorities (so the story goes) therefore ordered various measures taken, including enforced evacuation of homes, construction of "simple outdoor structures", and showing of movies out of doors. Although the quake, striking at 19:36, was powerful enough to destroy or badly damage about half of the homes, the "effective preventative measures taken" were said to have kept the death toll under 300. This in a population of about 1.6 million, where otherwise tens of thousands of fatalities might have been expected.<ref>{{Harvnb|Whitham|Berry|Heidebrecht|Kanasewich|1976|p=266}} provide a brief report. The report of the Haicheng Earthquake Study Delegation {{Harv|Anonymous|1977}} has a fuller account. {{Harvtxt|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006|p=779}}, after careful examination of the records, set the death toll at 2,041.</ref>		The M 7.3 ] is the most widely cited "success" of earthquake prediction.<ref>E.g.: {{Harvnb|Davies|1975}}; {{Harvnb|Whitham|Berry|Heidebrecht|Kanasewich|1976|p=265}}; {{Harvnb|Hammond|1976}}; {{Harvnb|Ward|1978}}; {{Harvnb|Kerr|1979|p=543}}; {{Harvnb|Allen|1982|p=S332}}; {{Harvnb|Rikitake|1982}}; {{Harvnb|Zoback|1983}}; {{Harvnb|Ludwin|2001}}; {{Harvnb|Jackson|2004|pp=335, 344}}; {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=328}}.</ref> The ostensible story is that study of seismic activity in the region led the Chinese authorities to issue a medium-term prediction in June 1974, and the political authorities therefore ordered various measures taken, including enforced evacuation of homes, construction of "simple outdoor structures", and showing of movies out-of-doors. The quake, striking at 19:36, was powerful enough to destroy or badly damage about half of the homes. However, the "effective preventative measures taken" were said to have kept the death toll under 300 in an area with population of about 1.6 million, where otherwise tens of thousands of fatalities might have been expected.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Whitham|Berry|Heidebrecht|Kanasewich|1976|p=266}} provide a brief report. {{Harvtxt|Raleigh|Bennett|Craig|Hanks|1977}} has a fuller account. {{Harvtxt|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006|p=779}}, after careful examination of the records, set the death toll at 2,041.</ref>
	However, although a major earthquake certainly occurred, there has been some skepticism about this narrative of effective measures taken on the basis of a timely prediction. This was during the ], when "belief in earthquake prediction was made an element of ideological orthodoxy that distinguished the true party liners from right wing deviationists"<ref>Raleigh et al. (1977), quoted in {{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}, p 434. Geller has a whole section (§4.1) of discussion and many sources. See also {{Harvnb|Kanamori|2003}}, pp. 1210-11.</ref> and record keeping was disordered, making it difficult to verify details of the claim, even as to whether there was an ordered evacuation. The method used for either the medium-term or short-term predictions (other than "Chairman Mao's revolutionary line"<ref>Quoted in {{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}, p. 434. {{Harvtxt|Lomnitz|1994|loc= Ch. 2}} describes some of circumstances attending to the practice of seismology at that time; {{Harvnb|Turner|1993|pp=456–458}} has additional observations.</ref>) has not been specified.<ref>Measurement of an uplift has been claimed, but that was 185 km away, and likely surveyed by inexperienced amateurs. {{Harvnb|Jackson|2004}}, p. 345.</ref> It has been suggested that the evacuation was spontaneous, following the strong (M 4.7) foreshock that occurred the day before.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kanamori|2003}}, p. 1211. According to {{Harvnb|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006}} foreshocks were widely understood to precede a large earthquake, "which may explain why various made their own evacuation decisions" (p. 762).</ref>		However, although a major earthquake occurred, there has been some skepticism about the narrative of measures taken on the basis of a timely prediction. This event occurred during the ], when "belief in earthquake prediction was made an element of ideological orthodoxy that distinguished the true party liners from right wing deviationists".<ref>{{Harvnb|Raleigh|Bennett|Craig|Hanks|1977|p=266}}, quoted in {{Harvtxt|Geller|1997|p=434}}. Geller has a whole section (§4.1) of discussion and many sources. See also {{Harvnb|Kanamori|2003|pp=1210–11}}.</ref> Recordkeeping was disordered, making it difficult to verify details, including whether there was any ordered evacuation. The method used for either the medium-term or short-term predictions (other than "Chairman Mao's revolutionary line"<ref>Quoted in {{Harvtxt|Geller|1997|p=434}}. {{Harvtxt|Lomnitz|1994|loc=Ch. 2}} describes some of circumstances attending to the practice of seismology at that time; {{Harvnb|Turner|1993|pp=456–458}} has additional observations.</ref>) has not been specified.{{efn|1=Measurement of an uplift has been claimed, but that was 185&nbsp;km away, and likely surveyed by inexperienced amateurs.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|2004|p=345}}.</ref>}} The evacuation may have been spontaneous, following the strong (M 4.7) foreshock that occurred the day before.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kanamori|2003|p=1211}}.</ref>{{efn|1=According to {{Harvtxt|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006|p=762}} foreshocks were widely understood to precede a large earthquake, "which may explain why various made their own evacuation decisions".}}
	Many of the missing details have been filled in by a 2006 report that had access to an extensive range of records.<ref>{{Harvnb|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006}}.</ref> This study found that the predictions were flawed. "In particular, there was no official short-term prediction, although such a prediction was made by individual scientists." <ref>{{Harvnb|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006}}, p. 785.</ref> Also: "it was the foreshocks alone that triggered the final decisions of warning and evacuation". The light loss of life (which they set at 2,041) is attributed to a number of fortuitous circumstances, including earthquake education in the previous months (prompted by elevated seismic activity), local initiative, timing (occurring when people were neither working nor asleep), and local style of construction. The authors conclude that, while unsatisfactory as a prediction, "it was an attempt to predict a major earthquake that for the first time did not end up with practical failure."		A 2006 study that had access to an extensive range of records found that the predictions were flawed. "In particular, there was no official short-term prediction, although such a prediction was made by individual scientists."<ref name=":13">{{Harvnb|Wang|Chen|Sun|Wang|2006|p=785}}.</ref> Also: "it was the foreshocks alone that triggered the final decisions of warning and evacuation". They estimated that 2,041 lives were lost. That more did not die was attributed to a number of fortuitous circumstances, including earthquake education in the previous months (prompted by elevated seismic activity), local initiative, timing (occurring when people were neither working nor asleep), and local style of construction. The authors conclude that, while unsatisfactory as a prediction, "it was an attempt to predict a major earthquake that for the first time did not end up with practical failure."<ref name=":13"/>
	{{further|1975 Haicheng earthquake}}		{{further|1975 Haicheng earthquake}}
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>"... routine announcement of reliable predictions may be possible within 10 years...." </big>
	|source= — NAS Panel on Earthquake Prediction, 1976<ref>"... in well instrumented areas." {{Harvnb|PEP|1976}}, p. 2. Further on (p. 31) the Panel states: "A program for routine announcement of reliable predictions may be 10 or more years away, although there will be, of course, many announcements of predictions (as, indeed, there already have been) long before such a systematic program is set up." According to {{Harvtxt|Allen|1982|p=S331}} "a certain euphoria of imminent victory pervaded the earthquake-prediction community...." See {{Harvnb|Geller|1997}} §2.3 for additional quotes.</ref>
	}}
	===1976: Southern California, USA (Whitcomb)===
	{{anchor|Whitcomb76}}
	On April 15, 1976, Dr. James Whitcomb presented a scientific paper<ref>"Time-dependent V<sub>p</sub> and V<sub>p</sub>/V<sub>s</sub> in an area of the Transverse Ranges of southern California", presented to the American Geophysical Union annual meeting. {{Harvnb|Allen|1983}}.</ref> that found, based on ] (seismic wave velocities), an area northeast of ] along the ] was "a candidate for intensified geophysical monitoring". He presented this not as a prediction that an earthquake ''would'' happen, but as a test of ''whether'' an earthquake would happen, as might be predicted on the basis of V<sub>p</sub>/V<sub>s</sub>. This distinction was generally lost; he was and has been held to have predicted an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 within 12 months.
	The area identified by Whitcomb was quite large, and overlapped the area of the Palmdale Bulge,<ref>{{Harvnb|Shapley|1976}}.</ref> an apparent uplift (later discounted<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|1981c}}.</ref>), which was causing some concern as a possible precursor of large earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Both the uplift and the changes in seismic velocities were predicted by the then current ] theory, although Whitcomb emphasized his "hypothesis test" was based solely on the seismic velocities, and that he regarded that theory unproven.<ref>{{Harvnb|Allen|1983|p=78}}.</ref>
	Whitcomb subsequently withdrew the prediction, as continuing measurements no longer supported it. No earthquake of the specified magnitude occurred within the specified area or time.<ref>{{Harvnb|Whitcomb|1976}}, {{Harvnb|Allen|1983|p=79}}; {{Harvnb|Whitcomb|1976}}.</ref>
	===1976–1978: South Carolina, USA===
	{{anchor|South Carolina}}
	Towards the end of 1975 a number of minor earthquakes in an area of ] (USA) not known for seismic activity were linked to the filling of a new reservoir (]). Changes in the ] of the seismic waves were observed with these quakes. Based on additional Vp/Vs changes observed between 30 December 1975 and 7 January 1976 an earthquake prediction was made on 12 January. A magnitude 2.5 event occurred on 14 January 1976.<ref>{{Harvnb|Stevenson|Talwani|Amick|1976}}.</ref>
	In the course of a three-year study a second prediction was claimed successful for an M 2.2 earthquake on November 25, 1977. However, this was only "two-thirds" successful (in respect of time and magnitude) as it occurred 7&nbsp;km outside of the prediction location.<ref>{{Harvnb|Talwani|1981|pp=385, 386}}. These results are somewhat problematical as in the study ten Vs/Vp anomalies and ten M ≥ 2.0 events occurred, but only six coincided {{Harv|Talwani|1981|pp=381, 386, and see table}}, and there is no explanation why only two were selected as predictions.</ref>
	This study also evaluated other precursors, such as the ], which "predicted" neither of these two events, and ], which showed possible correlation with other events, but not with these two.
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>"... at least 10 years, perhaps more, before widespread, reliable prediction of major earthquakes is achieved."</big>
	|source= – Richard Kerr, 1978<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|1978}}.</ref>
	}}
	===1978: Izu-Oshima-Kinkai, Japan===
	{{anchor|Izu}}
	On 14 January 1978 a swarm of intense microearthquakes prompted the Japan Meteorological Agence (JMA) to issue a statement suggesting that precautions for the prevention of damage might be considered. This was not a prediction, but coincidentally it was made just 90 minutes before the M 7.0 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}, §4.3, p. 435.</ref> This was subsequently, but incorrectly,<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1991}}.</ref> claimed as successful prediction by {{Harvtxt|Hamada|1991}}, and again by {{Harvtxt|Roeloffs|Langbein|1994}}.
	===1978: Oaxaca, Mexico===
	{{anchor|Oaxaca}}
	{{Harvtxt|Ohtake|Matumoto|Latham|1981}} claimed:
	<blockquote>The rupture zone and type of the 1978 Oaxaca: southern Mexico earthquake (M<sub>s</sub> = 7.7) were successfully predicted based on the premonitory quiescence of seismic activity and the spatial and temporal relationships of recent large earthquakes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ohtake|Matumoto|Latham|1981|p=53}}.</ref></blockquote>
	However, the 1977 paper on which the claim is based<ref>{{Harvnb|Ohtake|Matumoto|Latham|1977|p=375}}. See also pp. 381–383.</ref> said only that the "most probable" area "''may'' be the site of a future large earthquake"; a "firm prediction of the occurrence time is not attempted." This prediction is therefore incomplete, making its evaluation difficult.
	After re-analysis of the region's seismicity {{Harvtxt|Garza|Lomnitz|1979}} concluded that though there was a slight decrease in seismicity, it was within the range of normal random variation, and did not amount to a seismic gap (the basis of the prediction). The validity of the prediction is further undermined by a report that the apparent lack of seismicity was due to a cataloging omission.<ref>Whiteside & Haberman, 1989, quoted in {{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc= §4.2}}. {{Harvtxt|Lomnitz|1994|p= 122}} says: "We had neglected to report our data in time for inclusion".</ref>
	This prediction had an unusual twist in that its announcement by the University of Texas (UT) – for a destructive earthquake<ref>The UT administrative spokesman reportedly suggested on the order of the M 6.2 ], where over 5,000 people died. {{Harvnb|Lomnitz|1983|p=30}}.</ref> in Oaxaca at an undetermined date – came just ten days before the date given by another prediction for a destructive earthquake in Oaxaca. This other prediction had been made by a pair of Las Vegas gamblers; the local authorities had deemed it uncredible, and decided to ignore it. The announcement from a respectable institution unfortunately confirmed (for many people) the more specific prediction; this appears to have caused some panic.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Lomnitz|1983}}, {{Harvtxt|McNally|1979|p=30}}, and {{Harvtxt|Lomnitz|1994|pp=122–127}} provide details.</ref> On the day of the amateur prediction there was an earthquake, but only a distinctly non-destructive M 4.2, which, as one mayor said, they get all the time.
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>" ... no general and definite way to successful earthquake prediction is clear."</big>
	|source= — Ziro Suzuki, 1982 <ref>{{Harvnb|Suzuki|1982}}, p. 235.</ref>
	}}
	===1981: Lima, Peru (Brady)===		===1981: Lima, Peru (Brady)===
	{{anchor|Lima}}{{anchor|Brady}}{{anchor|Brady-Spence}}		{{anchor|Lima}}{{anchor|Brady}}{{anchor|Brady-Spence}}
	In 1976 Dr. Brian Brady, a physicist then at the ], where he had studied how rocks fracture, "concluded a series of four articles on the theory of earthquakes with the deduction that strain building in the subduction zone might result in an earthquake of large magnitude within a period of seven to fourteen years from mid November 1974."<ref>{{Harvnb|Roberts|1983|loc=§4}}, p. 151.</ref> In an internal memo written in June 1978 he narrowed the time window to "October to November, 1981", with a main shock in the range of 9.2±0.2.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010}}, p. 114.</ref> In a 1980 memo he was reported as specifying "mid-September 1980".<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982b}}, p. 231.</ref> This was discussed at a scientific seminar in San Juan, Argentina, in October 1980, where Brady's colleague, Dr. W. Spence, presented a paper. Brady and Spence then met with government officials from the U.S. and Peru on 29 October, and "forecast a series of large magnitude earthquakes in the second half of 1981."<ref>{{Harvnb|Roberts|1983}} §4, p. 151.</ref> This prediction became widely known in Peru, following what the U.S. embassy described as "sensational first page headlines carried in most Lima dailies" on January 26, 1981.<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982b}}, document 85, p. 247.</ref>		In 1976, Brian Brady, a physicist, then at the ], where he had studied how rocks fracture, "concluded a series of four articles on the theory of earthquakes with the deduction that strain building in the subduction zone might result in an earthquake of large magnitude within a period of seven to fourteen years from mid November 1974."<ref name=":14">{{Harvnb|Roberts|1983|loc=§4|p=151}}.</ref> In an internal memo written in June 1978 he narrowed the time window to "October to November, 1981", with a main shock in the range of 9.2±0.2.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010|p=114}}.</ref> In a 1980 memo he was reported as specifying "mid-September 1980".<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982|p=231}}.</ref> This was discussed at a scientific seminar in San Juan, Argentina, in October 1980, where Brady's colleague, W. Spence, presented a paper. Brady and Spence then met with government officials from the U.S. and Peru on 29 October, and "forecast a series of large magnitude earthquakes in the second half of 1981."<ref name=":14"/> This prediction became widely known in Peru, following what the U.S. embassy described as "sensational first page headlines carried in most Lima dailies" on January 26, 1981.<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982|loc=document 85|p=247}}.</ref>
	On 27 January 1981, after reviewing the Brady-Spence prediction, the U.S. ] (NEPEC) announced it was "unconvinced of the scientific validity" of the prediction, and had been "shown nothing in the observed seismicity data, or in the theory insofar as presented, that lends substance to the predicted times, locations, and magnitudes of the earthquakes." It went on to say that while there was a probability of major earthquakes at the predicted times, that probability was low, and recommend that "the prediction not be given serious consideration."<ref>Quoted by {{Harvnb|Roberts|1983}}, p. 151. Copy of statement in {{Harvnb|Gersony|1982b}}, document 86, p. 248.</ref>		On 27 January 1981, after reviewing the Brady-Spence prediction, the U.S. ] (NEPEC) announced it was "unconvinced of the scientific validity" of the prediction, and had been "shown nothing in the observed seismicity data, or in the theory insofar as presented, that lends substance to the predicted times, locations, and magnitudes of the earthquakes." It went on to say that while there was a probability of major earthquakes at the predicted times, that probability was low, and recommend that "the prediction not be given serious consideration."<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982|loc=document 86|p=248}}; {{Harvnb|Roberts|1983|p=151}}.</ref>
	Unfazed,<ref>The chairman of the NEPEC later complained to the Agency for International Development that one of its staff members had been instrumental in encouraging Brady and promulgating his prediction long after it had been scientifically discredited. See {{Harvtxt|Gersony|1982b}}, document 146 (p. 201) and following.</ref> Brady subsequently revised his forecast, stating there would be at least three earthquakes on or about July 6, August 18 and September 24, 1981,<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982b}}, document 116, p. 343; {{Harvnb|Roberts|1983}}, p. 152.</ref> leading one USGS official to complain: "If he is allowed to continue to play this game ... he will eventually get a hit and his theories will be considered valid by many."<ref>John Filson, deputy chief of the USGS Office of Earthquake Studies, quoted by {{Harvnb|Hough|2010}}, p. 116.</ref>		Unfazed,{{efn|1=The chairman of the NEPEC later complained to the Agency for International Development that one of its staff members had been instrumental in encouraging Brady and promulgating his prediction long after it had been scientifically discredited.<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982|loc=document 146|p=201}}.</ref>}} Brady subsequently revised his forecast, stating there would be at least three earthquakes on or about July 6, August 18 and September 24, 1981,<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982|loc=document 116|p=343}}; {{Harvnb|Roberts|1983|p=152}}.</ref> leading one USGS official to complain: "If he is allowed to continue to play this game ... he will eventually get a hit and his theories will be considered valid by many."<ref>John Filson, deputy chief of the USGS Office of Earthquake Studies, quoted by {{Harvtxt|Hough|2010|p=116}}.</ref>
	On June 28 (the date most widely taken as the date of the first predicted earthquake), it was reported that: "the population of Lima passed a quiet Sunday".<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982b}}, document 147, p. 422, U.S. State Dept. cablegram.</ref> The headline on one Peruvian newspaper: "NO PASO NADA" ("Nothing happens").<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010}}, p. 117.</ref>		On June 28 (the date most widely taken as the date of the first predicted earthquake), it was reported that: "the population of Lima passed a quiet Sunday".<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982|loc=document 147|p=422}}, U.S. State Dept. cablegram.</ref> The headline on one Peruvian newspaper: "NO PASÓ NADA" ("Nothing happened").<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010|p=117}}.</ref>
	In July Brady formally withdrew his prediction on the grounds that prerequisite seismic activity had not occurred.<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982b}}, p. 416; {{Harvnb|Kerr|1981}}.</ref> Economic losses due to reduced tourism during this episode has been roughly estimated at one hundred million dollars.<ref>{{Harvnb|Giesecke|1983}}, p. 68.</ref>		In July Brady formally withdrew his prediction on the grounds that prerequisite seismic activity had not occurred.<ref>{{Harvnb|Gersony|1982|p=416}}; {{Harvnb|Kerr|1981}}.</ref> Economic losses due to reduced tourism during this episode has been roughly estimated at one hundred million dollars.<ref>{{Harvnb|Giesecke|1983|p=68}}.</ref>
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>"Recent advances ... make the routine prediction of earthquakes seem practicable."</big>
	|source= — Stuart Crampin, 1987<ref>{{Harvnb|Crampin|1987}}. The "recent advances" Crampin refers is his work with ] (SWS)</ref>
	}}
	===1985–1993: Parkfield, USA (Bakun-Lindh)===		=== 1985–1993: Parkfield, U.S. (Bakun-Lindh) ===
	{{anchor|Parkfield}}		{{anchor|Parkfield}}
	The "Parkfield earthquake prediction experiment" was the most heralded scientific earthquake prediction ever.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Geller|1997|loc=§6}} describes some of the coverage. The most ''anticipated'' prediction ever is likely Iben Browning's 1990 New Madrid prediction (discussed below), but it lacked any scientific basis.</ref> It was based on an observation that the Parkfield segment of the ]<ref>Near the small town of ], roughly half-way between San Francisco and Los Angeles.</ref> breaks regularly with a moderate earthquake of about M 6 every several decades: 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bakun|McEvilly|1979}}; {{Harvnb|Bakun|Lindh|1985}}; {{Harvnb|Kerr|1984}}.</ref> More particularly, {{Harvtxt|Bakun|Lindh|1985}} pointed out that, if the 1934 quake is excluded, these occur every 22 years, ±4.3 years. Counting from 1966, they predicted a 95% chance that the next earthquake would hit around 1988, or 1993 at the latest. The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) evaluated this, and concurred.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bakun|Breckenridge|Bredehoeft|Burford|1987}}.</ref> The U.S. Geological Survey and the State of California therefore established one of the "most sophisticated and densest nets of monitoring instruments in the world",<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|1984}}, "How to Catch an Earthquake". See also {{Harvnb|Roeloffs|Langbein|1994}}.</ref> in part to identify any precursors when the quake came. Confidence was high enough that detailed plans were made for alerting emergency authorities if there were signs an earthquake was imminent.<ref>{{Harvnb|Roeloffs|Langbein|1994|p=316}}.</ref> In the words of the ]: "never has an ambush been more carefully laid for such an event."<ref>Quoted by {{Harvnb|Geller|1997|p=440}}.</ref>		The "] prediction experiment" was the most heralded scientific earthquake prediction ever.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Geller|1997|loc=§6}} describes some of the coverage.</ref>{{efn|1=The most ''anticipated'' prediction ever is likely ], but it lacked any scientific basis.}} It was based on an observation that the Parkfield segment of the ]{{efn|1=Near the small town of ], roughly halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles.}} breaks regularly with a moderate earthquake of about M 6 every several decades: 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bakun|McEvilly|1979}}; {{Harvnb|Bakun|Lindh|1985}}; {{Harvnb|Kerr|1984}}.</ref> More particularly, {{Harvtxt|Bakun|Lindh|1985}} pointed out that, if the 1934 quake is excluded, these occur every 22 years, ±4.3 years. Counting from 1966, they predicted a 95% chance that the next earthquake would hit around 1988, or 1993 at the latest. The ] (NEPEC) evaluated this, and concurred.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bakun|Breckenridge|Bredehoeft|Burford|1987}}.</ref> The U.S. Geological Survey and the State of California therefore established one of the "most sophisticated and densest nets of monitoring instruments in the world",<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr 1984, "How to Catch an Earthquake"}}; {{Harvnb|Roeloffs|Langbein|1994}}.</ref> in part to identify any precursors when the quake came. Confidence was high enough that detailed plans were made for alerting emergency authorities if there were signs an earthquake was imminent.<ref>{{Harvnb|Roeloffs|Langbein|1994|p=316}}.</ref> In the words of '']'': "never has an ambush been more carefully laid for such an event."<ref>Quoted by {{Harvnb|Geller|1997|p=440}}.</ref>
	1993 came, and passed, without fulfillment. Eventually there was an M 6.0 earthquake, on 28 September 2004, but without forewarning or obvious precursors.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|2004}}; {{Harvnb|Bakun|Aagaard|Dost|Ellsworth|2005}}, {{Harvnb|Harris|Arrowsmith|2006|p=S5}}.</ref> While the ''experiment'' in catching an earthquake is considered by many scientists to have been successful,<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|p=52}}.</ref> the ''prediction'' was unsuccessful in that the eventual event was a decade late.<ref>It has also been argued that the actual quake differed from the kind expected {{Harv|Jackson|Kagan|2006}}, and that the prediction was no more significant than a simpler null hypothesis {{Harv|Kagan|1997a}}.</ref>		Year 1993 came, and passed, without fulfillment. Eventually there was an M 6.0 earthquake on the Parkfield segment of the fault, on 28 September 2004, but without forewarning or obvious precursors.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|2004}}; {{Harvnb|Bakun|Aagaard|Dost|Ellsworth|2005}}, {{Harvnb|Harris|Arrowsmith|2006|p=S5}}.</ref> While the ''experiment'' in catching an earthquake is considered by many scientists to have been successful,<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|p=52}}.</ref> the ''prediction'' was unsuccessful in that the eventual event was a decade late.{{efn|1=It has also been argued that the actual quake differed from the kind expected,<ref name=":10"/> and that the prediction was no more significant than a simpler null hypothesis.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|1997}}.</ref>}}
	{{further|Parkfield earthquake}}		{{further|Parkfield earthquake}}
	===1987–1995: Greece (VAN)===		=== 1983–1995: Greece (VAN) ===
	{{anchor|VAN}}		{{anchor|VAN}}
			In 1981, the "VAN" group, headed by Panayiotis Varotsos, said that they found a relationship between earthquakes and 'seismic electric signals' (SES). In 1984 they presented a table of 23 earthquakes from 19 January 1983 to 19 September 1983, of which they claimed to have successfully predicted 18 earthquakes.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|1984b|loc=Table 3|p=117}}.</ref> Other lists followed, such as their 1991 claim of predicting six out of seven earthquakes with {{M|s}} ≥ 5.5 in the period of 1 April 1987 through 10 August 1989, or five out of seven earthquakes with {{M|s}} ≥ 5.3 in the overlapping period of 15 May 1988 to 10 August 1989,{{efn|1={{Harvtxt|Varotsos|Lazaridou|1991}} Table 2 (p. 340) and Table 3 (p. 341) includes nine predictions (unnumbered) from 27 April 1987 to 28 April 1988, with a tenth prediction issued on 26 February 1987 mentioned in a footnote. Two of these earthquakes were excluded from Table 3 on the grounds of having occurred in neighboring Albania. Table 1 (p. 333) includes 17 predictions (numbered) issued from 15 May 1988 to 23 July 1989. A footnote mentions a missed (unpredicted) earthquake on 19 March 1989; all 17 entries show associated earthquakes, and presumably are thereby deemed to have been successful predictions. Table 4 (p. 345) is a continuation of Table 1 (p. 346) out to 30 November 1989, adding five additional predictions with associated earthquakes.}} In 1996 they published a "Summary of all Predictions issued from January 1st, 1987 to June 15, 1995",<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|Eftaxias|Antonopoulos|1996a|loc=Table 1}}.</ref> amounting to 94 predictions.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|1998}}.</ref> Matching this against a list of "All earthquakes with M<sub>S</sub>(ATH)"<ref name=":15">{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|Eftaxias|Antonopoulos|1996a|loc=Table 3|p=55}}.</ref>{{efn|1="M<sub>S</sub>(ATH)" is the M<sub>S</sub> magnitude reported by the National Observatory of Athens (SI-NOA), or VAN's estimate of what that magnitude would be.<ref name=":0">{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|Eftaxias|Antonopoulos|1996a|p=49}}.</ref> These differ from the M<sub>S</sub> magnitudes reported by the USGS.}} and within geographical bounds including most of Greece,{{efn|1=Specifically, between 36° and 41° north latitude and 19° to 25° east longitude.<ref name=":0"/>}} they come up with a list of 14 earthquakes they should have predicted. Here they claim ten successes, for a success rate of 70%.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|Eftaxias|Antonopoulos|1996a|p=56}}.</ref>{{efn|1=They have suggested the success rate should be higher, as one of the missed quakes would have been predicted but for attendance at a conference, and in another case a "clear SES" was recognized but a magnitude could not be determined for lack of operating stations.}}
			The VAN predictions have been criticized on various grounds, including being geophysically implausible,<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|1996b|p=1365}}; {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1996a|p=1324}}.</ref> "vague and ambiguous",<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=§4.5|p=436}}: "VAN's 'predictions' never specify the windows, and never state an unambiguous expiration date. Thus VAN are not making earthquake predictions in the first place."</ref> failing to satisfy prediction criteria,<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|1996b|p=1363}}. Also: {{Harvtxt|Rhoades|Evison|1996|p=1373}}: No one "can confidently state, except in the most general terms, what the VAN hypothesis is, because the authors of it have nowhere presented a thorough formulation of it."</ref> and retroactive adjustment of parameters.<ref name=":16">{{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1996|p=1434}}.</ref> A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=Table 1|p=436}}.</ref> The VAN predictions not only fail to do better than chance, but show "a much better association with the events which occurred before them", according to Mulargia and Gasperini.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992|p=37}}.</ref> Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hamada|1993}} 10 successful predictions out of 12 issued (defining success as those that occurred within 22 days of the prediction, within 100&nbsp;km of the predicted epicenter and with a magnitude difference (predicted minus true) not greater than 0.7.)</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Shnirman|Schreider|Dmitrieva|1993}}; Nishizawa et al. 1993{{full citation needed|date=May 2020}} and Uyeda 1991{{full citation needed|date=May 2020}}</ref> Both positive and negative views on VAN predictions from this period were summarized in the 1996 book ''A Critical Review of VAN'' edited by Sir James Lighthill<ref>{{Harvnb|Lighthill|1996}}.</ref> and in a debate issue presented by the journal ] that was focused on the statistical significance of the VAN method.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Table of contents|journal=Geophysical Research Letters|volume=23|issue=11|date=27 May 1996|doi=10.1002/grl.v23.11}}; {{Harvnb|Aceves|Park|Strauss|1996}}.</ref> VAN had the opportunity to reply to their critics in those review publications.<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|1996b}}; {{Harvnb|Varotsos|Eftaxias|Lazaridou|1996}}.</ref> In 2011, the ICEF reviewed the 1996 debate, and concluded that the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by VAN could not be validated.<ref name=":5"/> In 2013, the SES activities were found<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Sarlis|Skordas|Lazaridou|2013}}</ref> to be coincident with the minima of the fluctuations of the order parameter of seismicity, which have been shown<ref>{{Harvnb|Christopoulos|Skordas|Sarlis|2020}}</ref> to be statistically significant precursors by employing the event coincidence analysis.<ref>{{Harvnb|Donges|Schleussner|Siegmund|Donner|2016}}</ref>
	Professors P. Varotsos, K. Alexopoulos and K. Nomicos – "VAN" – claimed in a 1981 paper<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|Nomicos|1981}}, described by {{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b}}, §3.3.1, p. 512, and {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992}}, p. 32.</ref> an ability to predict M ≥ 2.6 earthquakes within 80&nbsp;km of their observatory (in Greece) approximately seven hours beforehand, by measurements of 'seismic electric signals'. In 1996 Varotsos and other colleagues claimed to have predicted impending earthquakes within windows of several weeks, 100–120&nbsp;km, and ±0.7 of the magnitude.
			A crucial issue is the large and often indeterminate parameters of the predictions,<ref>{{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992|p=32}}; {{Harvnb|Geller|1996a|p=184}} ("ranges not given, or vague"); {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992|p=32}} ("large indetermination in the parameters"); {{Harvnb|Rhoades|Evison|1996|p=1372}} ("falls short"); {{Harvnb|Jackson|1996b|p=1364}} ("have never been fully specified"); {{Harvnb|Jackson|Kagan|1998|p=573}} ("much too vague"); {{Harvnb|Wyss|Allmann|1996|p=1307}} ("parameters not defined"). {{Harvtxt|Stavrakakis|Drakopoulos|1996}} discuss some specific cases in detail.</ref> such that some critics say these are not predictions, and should not be recognized as such.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997|p=436}}. {{Harvtxt|Geller|1996a|loc=§6|pp=183–189}} discusses this at length.</ref> Much of the controversy with VAN arises from this failure to adequately specify these parameters. Some of their telegrams include predictions of two distinct earthquake events, such as (typically) one earthquake predicted at 300&nbsp;km "NW" of Athens, and another at 240&nbsp;km "W", "with {{sic|magnitutes|nolink=y}} 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit.<ref>Telegram 39, issued 1 September 1988, in {{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|1991|loc=Fig. 21|p=337}}. See figure 26 (p. 344) for a similar telegram. See also telegrams 32 and 41 (figures 15 and 16, pp. 115-116) in {{Harvnb|Varotsos|Alexopoulos|1984b}}. This same pair of predictions is apparently presented as Telegram 10 in Table 1, p. 50, of {{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|Eftaxias|Antonopoulos|1996a}}. Text from several telegrams is presented in Table 2 (p. 54), and faxes of a similar character.</ref>{{efn|1=This pair of predictions was issued on 9/1/1988, and a similar pair of predictions was re-iterated on 9/30/1988, except that the predicted amplitudes were reduced to M(l)=5.0 and 5.3, respectively. In fact, an earthquake did occur approximately 240&nbsp;km west of Athens, on 10/16/1988, with magnitude Ms(ATH)=6.0, which would correspond to a local magnitude M(l) of 5.5.<ref name=":15"/>}} The time parameter estimation was introduced in VAN Method by means of ] in 2001.<ref name=":6"/>
	The VAN predictions have been severely criticised on various grounds, including being geophysically implausible,<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|1996b}}, p. 1365; {{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1996}}, p. 1324.</ref> "vague and ambiguous",<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}, §4.5, p. 436: "VAN’s ‘predictions’ never specify the windows, and never state an unambiguous expiration date. Thus VAN are not making earthquake predictions in the first place."</ref> failing to satisfy prediction criteria,<ref>{{Harvnb|Jackson|1996b}}, p. 1363. Also: {{Harvtxt|Rhoades|Evison|1996}}, p. 1373: No one "can confidently state, except in the most general terms, what the VAN hypothesis is, because the authors of it have nowhere presented a thorough formulation of it."</ref> and retroactive adjustment of parameters.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|Jackson|1996}},grl p. 1434.</ref> A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters,<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997}}, Table 1, p. 436.</ref> more likely a lucky coincidence than a "success". In the end the VAN predictions not only fail to do better than chance, but show "a much better association with the events which occurred ''before'' them." <ref>{{Harvnb|Mulargia|Gasperini|1992}}, p. 37. They continue: "In particular, there is little doubt that the occurrence of a ‘large event’ (Ms ≥ 5.8 ) has been followed by a VAN prediction with essentially identical epicentre and magnitude with a probability too large to be ascribed to chance."</ref>
			VAN has disputed the 'pessimistic' conclusions of their critics, but the critics have not relented.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Varotsos|Lazaridou|Eftaxias|Antonopoulos|1996a}} they also cite Hamada's claim of a 99.8% confidence level. {{Harvtxt|Geller|1996a|p=214}} finds that this "was based on the premise that 6 out of 12 telegrams" were in fact successful predictions, which is questioned. {{Harvtxt|Kagan|1996|p=1315}} finds that in Shnirman et al. "several variables ... have been modified to achieve the result." {{Harvtxt|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1998|p=98}} mention other "flaws such as overly generous crediting of successes, using strawman null hypotheses and failing to account for properly for ''a posteriori'' "tuning" of parameters."</ref> It was suggested that VAN failed to account for clustering of earthquakes,<ref name=":16"/> or that they interpreted their data differently during periods of greater seismic activity.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|1996|p=1318}}.</ref>
			VAN has been criticized on several occasions for causing public panic and widespread unrest.<ref>{{Harvtxt|''GR Reporter''|2011}} "From its very appearance in the early 1990s until today, the VAN group is the subject of sharp criticism from Greek seismologists"; {{Harvtxt|Chouliaras|Stavrakakis|1999}}: "panic overtook the general population" (Prigos, 1993). {{Harvtxt|Ohshansky|Geller|2003|p=}}: "causing widespread unrest and a sharp increase in tranquilizer drugs" (Athens, 1999). {{Harvtxt|Papadopoulos|2010}}: "great social uneasiness" (Patras, 2008). {{Harvtxt|Anagnostopoulos|1998|p=96}}: "often caused widespread rumors, confusion and anxiety in Greece". {{Harvtxt|ICEF|2011|p=352}}: issuance over the years of "hundreds" of statements "causing considerable concern among the Greek population."</ref> This has been exacerbated by the broadness of their predictions, which cover large areas of Greece (up to 240 kilometers across, and often pairs of areas),{{efn|1=While some analyses have been done on the basis of a 100&nbsp;km range (e.g., {{Harvnb|Hamada|1993|p=205}}), {{Harvtxt|Varotsos|Lazaridou|1991|p=339}} claim credit for earthquakes within a radius of 120&nbsp;km.}} much larger than the areas actually affected by earthquakes of the magnitudes predicted (usually several tens of kilometers across).<ref>{{Harvnb|Stiros|1997|p=482}}.</ref>{{efn|1={{Harvtxt|Geller|1996a|loc=6.4.2}} notes that while Kobe was severely damaged by the 1995 {{M|w|6.9}} earthquake, damage in Osaka, only 30&nbsp;km away, was relatively light.}} Magnitudes are similarly broad: a predicted magnitude of "6.0" represents a range from a benign magnitude 5.3 to a broadly destructive 6.7.{{efn|1=VAN predictions generally do not specify the magnitude scale or precision, but they have generally claimed a precision of ±0.7.}} Coupled with indeterminate time windows of a month or more,<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Lazaridou|Eftaxias|Antonopoulos|1996a|pp=36, 60, 72}}.</ref> such predictions "cannot be practically utilized"<ref>{{Harvnb|Anagnostopoulos|1998}}.</ref> to determine an appropriate level of preparedness, whether to curtail usual societal functioning, or even to issue public warnings.{{efn|1=As an instance of the quandary public officials face: in 1995 Professor Varotsos reportedly filed a complaint with the public prosecutor accusing government officials of negligence in not responding to his supposed prediction of an earthquake. A government official was quoted as saying "VAN's prediction was not of any use" in that it covered two-thirds of the area of Greece.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1996a|p=223}}.</ref>}}
	===1989: Loma Prieta, USA===
			=== 2008: Greece (VAN) ===
			After 2006, VAN claim that all alarms related to SES activity have been made public by posting at ]. Such SES activity is evaluated using a new method they call 'natural time'. One such report was posted on Feb. 1, 2008, two weeks before the strongest earthquake in Greece during the period 1983–2011. This earthquake occurred on February 14, 2008, with magnitude (Mw) 6.9. VAN's report was also described in an article in the ] on Feb. 10, 2008.<ref>{{Harvnb|Apostolidis|2008}}; {{Harvnb|Uyeda|Kamogawa|2008}}; {{Harvnb|Chouliaras|2009}}; Uyeda 2010.{{full citation needed|date=May 2020}}</ref> However, Gerassimos Papadopoulos commented that the VAN reports were confusing and ambiguous, and that "none of the claims for successful VAN predictions is justified."<ref>{{Harvnb|Papadopoulos|2010}}.</ref> A reply to this comment, which insisted on the prediction's accuracy, was published in the same issue.<ref>{{Harvnb|Uyeda|Kamogawa|2010}}</ref>
			=== 1989: Loma Prieta, U.S. ===
	{{anchor|Loma Prieta}}		{{anchor|Loma Prieta}}
	On October 17, 1989, the Mw 6.9 (Ms 7.1<ref>M<sub>s</sub> is a measure of the intensity of surface shaking, the ].</ref>) Loma Prieta ("World Series") earthquake (epicenter in the Santa Cruz Mountains northwest of ]) caused significant damage in the San Francisco Bay area of California.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|p=B18}}.</ref> The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reportedly claimed, twelve hours ''after'' the event, that it had "forecast" this earthquake in a report the previous year.<ref>{{Harvnb|Garwin|1989}}.</ref> USGS staff subsequently claimed this quake had been "anticipated";<ref>{{Harvnb|USGS staff|1990|p=247}}.</ref> various other claims of prediction have also been made.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|1989}}; {{Harvnb|Harris|1998}}.</ref>		The ] (epicenter in the ] northwest of ]) caused significant damage in the ] of California.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|p=B18}}.</ref> The ] (USGS) reportedly claimed, twelve hours ''after'' the event, that it had "forecast" this earthquake in a report the previous year.<ref>{{Harvnb|Garwin|1989}}.</ref> USGS staff subsequently claimed this quake had been "anticipated";<ref>{{Harvnb|USGS staff|1990|p=247}}.</ref> various other claims of prediction have also been made.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|1989}}; {{Harvnb|Harris|1998}}.</ref>
	{{Harvtxt|Harris|1998}} reviewed 18 papers (with 26 forecasts) dating from 1910 "that variously offer or relate to scientific forecasts of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake." (''Forecast'' is often limited to a probabilistic estimate of an earthquake happening over some time period, distinguished from a more specific ''prediction''.<ref>E.g., {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=327}}.</ref> However, in this case this distinction is not made.) None of these forecasts can be rigorously tested due to lack of specificity,<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|p=B22}}.</ref> and where a forecast does bracket time and location it is because of such a broad window (e.g., covering the greater part of California for five years) as to lose any value as a prediction. Predictions that came close (but given a probability of only 30%) had ten- or twenty-year windows.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1990}}, Table 1, p. B5.</ref>		] ({{Harvtxt|Harris|1998}}) reviewed 18 papers (with 26 forecasts) dating from 1910 "that variously offer or relate to scientific forecasts of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake." (In this case no distinction is made between a ''forecast'', which is limited to a probabilistic estimate of an earthquake happening over some time period, and a more specific ''prediction''.<ref>e.g., {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=327}}.</ref>) None of these forecasts can be rigorously tested due to lack of specificity,<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|p=B22}}.</ref> and where a forecast does bracket the correct time and location, the window was so broad (e.g., covering the greater part of California for five years) as to lose any value as a prediction. Predictions that came close (but given a probability of only 30%) had ten- or twenty-year windows.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|loc=Table 1|p=B5}}.</ref>
	Of the several prediction methods used perhaps the most debated was the M8 algorithm used by Keilis-Borok and associates in four forecasts.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|pp=B10–B11}}.</ref> The first of these foreacasts missed both magnitude (M 7.5) and time (a five-year window from Jan. 1, 1984, through Dec. 31, 1988). They did get the location, by including most of California and half of Nevada.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1990}}, p. B10, and figure 4, p. B12.</ref> A subsequent revision, presented to the NEPEC, extended the time window to July 1, 1992, and reduced the location to only central California; the magnitude remained the same. A figure they presented had two more revisions, for M ≥ 7.0 quakes in central California. The five-year time window for one ended in July, 1989, and so missed the Loma Prieta event; the second revision extended to 1990, and so included Loma Prieta.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1990}}, p. B11, figure 5.</ref>		One debated prediction came from the M8 algorithm used by Keilis-Borok and associates in four forecasts.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|pp=B10–B11}}.</ref> The first of these forecasts missed both magnitude (M 7.5) and time (a five-year window from 1 January 1984, to 31 December 1988). They did get the location, by including most of California and half of Nevada.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|p=B10}}, and figure 4, p. B12.</ref> A subsequent revision, presented to the NEPEC, extended the time window to 1 July 1992, and reduced the location to only central California; the magnitude remained the same. A figure they presented had two more revisions, for M ≥ 7.0 quakes in central California. The five-year time window for one ended in July 1989, and so missed the Loma Prieta event; the second revision extended to 1990, and so included Loma Prieta.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|loc=figure 5|p=B11}}.</ref>
	Harris describes two differing views about whether the Loma Prieta earthquake was predicted. One view argues it did not occur on the ] (the focus of most of the forecasts), and involved dip-slip (vertical) movement rather than strike-slip (horizontal) movement, and so was not predicted.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Geller|1997|loc=§4.4}} cites several authors to say "it seems unreasonable to cite the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake as having fulfilled forecasts of a right-lateral strike-slip earthquake on the San Andreas Fault."</ref> The other view argues that it did occur in the San Andreas fault ''zone'', and released much of the strain accumulated since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake; therefore several of the forecasts were correct.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1990|pp=B21–B22}}.</ref> Hough states that "most seismologists" do not believe this quake was ''predicted'' "per se".<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|p=143}}.</ref> In a strict sense there were no predictions, only forecasts, which were only partially successful.		When discussing success or failure of prediction for the Loma Prieta earthquake, some scientists argue that it did not occur on the ] (the focus of most of the forecasts), and involved ] (vertical) movement rather than ] (horizontal) movement, and so was not predicted.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Geller|1997|loc=§4.4}} cites several authors to say "it seems unreasonable to cite the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake as having fulfilled forecasts of a right-lateral strike-slip earthquake on the San Andreas Fault."</ref>
			Other scientists argue that it did occur in the San Andreas Fault ''zone'', and released much of the strain accumulated since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake; therefore several of the forecasts were correct.<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1998|pp=B21–B22}}.</ref> Hough states that "most seismologists" do not believe this quake was ''predicted'' "per se".<ref>{{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|p=143}}.</ref> In a strict sense there were no predictions, only forecasts, which were only partially successful.
	] claimed to have predicted the Loma Prieta event, but (as will be seen in the next section) this claim has been rejected.		] claimed to have predicted the Loma Prieta event, but (as will be seen in the next section) this claim has been rejected.
Line 318:		Line 216:
	{{further|1989 Loma Prieta earthquake}}		{{further|1989 Loma Prieta earthquake}}
	===1990: New Madrid, USA (Browning)===		=== 1990: New Madrid, U.S. (Browning) ===
	{{anchor|New Madrid}}{{anchor|Browning}}		{{anchor|New Madrid}}{{anchor|Browning}}
			{{further|Tidal triggering of earthquakes}}
	] (a scientist by virtue of a Ph.D. degree in zoology and training as a biophysicist, but no training or experience in geology, geophysics, or seismology) was an "independent business consultant" who forecast long-term climate trends for businesses, including publication of a newsletter.<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993}} (USGS Circular 1083) is the most comprehensive, and most thorough, study of the Browning prediction, and appears to be the main source of most other reports. In the following notes, where an item is found in this document the pdf pagination is shown in brackets.</ref> He seems to have been enamored of the idea (scientifically unproven) that volcanoes and earthquakes are more likely to be triggered when the tidal force of the sun and the moon coincide to exert maximum stress on the earth's crust.<ref>A report on Browning's prediction cited over a dozen studies of possible tidal triggering of earthquakes, but concluded that "conclusive evidence of such a correlation has not been found". {{Harvnb|AHWG|1990|p=10 }}. It also found that Browning's identification of a particular high tide as triggering a particular earthquake "difficult to justify".</ref> Having calculated when these tidal forces maximize, Browning then "projected"<ref>According to a note in Spence, et al. (p. 4): "Browning preferred the term projection, which he defined as determining the time of a future event based on calculation. He considered 'prediction' to be akin to tea-leaf reading or other forms of psychic foretelling." See also Browning's own comment on p. 36 .</ref> what areas he thought might be ripe for a large earthquake. An area he mentioned frequently was the ] at the southeast corner of the state of ], the site of three very large earthquakes in 1811-1812, which he coupled with the date of December 3, 1990.		] (a scientist with a Ph.D. degree in zoology and training as a biophysicist, but no experience in geology, geophysics, or seismology) was an "independent business consultant" who forecast long-term climate trends for businesses.{{efn|1={{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993}} (USGS Circular 1083) is the most comprehensive, and most thorough, study of the Browning prediction, and appears to be the main source of most other reports. In the following notes, where an item is found in this document the pdf pagination is shown in brackets.}} He supported the idea (scientifically unproven) that volcanoes and earthquakes are more likely to be triggered when the tidal force of the Sun and the Moon coincide to exert maximum stress on the ] (]).{{efn|1=A report on Browning's prediction cited over a dozen studies of possible tidal triggering of earthquakes, but concluded that "conclusive evidence of such a correlation has not been found". It also found that Browning's identification of a particular high tide as triggering a particular earthquake "difficult to justify".<ref>{{Harvnb|AHWG|1990|p=10}} {{Harv|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=54 }}.</ref>}} Having calculated when these tidal forces maximize, Browning then "projected"<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|loc=<sup>{{dagger}}</sup> footnote, p. 4 }} "Browning preferred the term projection, which he defined as determining the time of a future event based on calculation. He considered 'prediction' to be akin to tea-leaf reading or other forms of psychic foretelling." See also Browning's own comment on p. 36 .</ref> what areas were most at risk for a large earthquake. An area he mentioned frequently was the ] at the southeast corner of the state of ], the site of three very large earthquakes in 1811–12, which he coupled with the date of 3 December 1990.
	Browning's reputation and perceived credibility were boosted when he claimed in various promotional flyers and advertisements to have predicted (among various other events<ref>Including "a 50/50 probability that the federal government of the U.S. will fall in 1992." {{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p= 39 }}.</ref>) the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989.<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|pp=9–11 }}, and see various documents in Appendix A, including ''The Browning Newsletter'' for November 21, 1989 (p. 26 ).</ref> The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) eventually formed an Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) to evaluate Browning's prediction. Its report (issued October 18, 1990) specifically rejected the claim of a successful prediction of the Loma Prieta earthquake;<ref>{{Harvnb|AHWG|1990|p=iii }}. Included in {{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993}} as part of Appendix B, pp. 45–66 .</ref> examination of a transcript of his talk in San Francisco on October 10 showed he had said only: "there will probably be several earthquakes around the world, Richter 6+, and there may be a volcano or two" – which, on a global scale, is about average for a week – with no mention of any earthquake anywhere in California.<ref>{{Harvnb|AHWG|1990|p=30 }}.</ref>		Browning's reputation and perceived credibility were boosted when he claimed in various promotional flyers and advertisements to have predicted (among various other events{{efn|1=Including "a 50/50 probability that the federal government of the U.S. will fall in 1992."<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=39 }}.</ref>}}) the Loma Prieta earthquake of 17 October 1989.<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|pp=9–11 }}, and see various documents in Appendix A, including ''The Browning Newsletter'' for 21 November 1989 (p. 26 ).</ref> The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) formed an Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) to evaluate Browning's prediction. Its report (issued 18 October 1990) specifically rejected the claim of a successful prediction of the Loma Prieta earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|AHWG|1990|p=III}} {{Harv|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=47 }}.</ref> A transcript of his talk in San Francisco on 10 October showed he had said: "there will probably be several earthquakes around the world, Richter 6+, and there may be a volcano or two" – which, on a global scale, is about average for a week – with no mention of any earthquake in California.<ref>{{Harvnb|AHWG|1990|p=30}} {{Harv|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=64 }}.</ref>
	Though the AHWG report thoroughly demolished Browning's claims of prior success and the basis of his "projection", it made little impact, coming after a year of continued claims of a successful prediction, the endorsement and support of geophysicist David Stewart,<ref>Previously involved in a psychic prediction of an earthquake for North Carolina in 1975 {{Harv|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=13 }}, Stewart sent a 13 page memo to a number of colleagues extolling Browning's supposed accomplishments, including predicting Loma Prieta. {{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=29 }}</ref> and the tacit endorsement of many public authorities in their preparations for a major disaster, all of which was amplified by massive exposure in all major news media.<ref>See {{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993}} throughout.</ref> The result was predictable. According to Tierney: <blockquote>... no forecast associated with an earthquake (or for that matter with any other hazard in the U. S.) has ever generated the degree of concern and public involvement that was observed with the Browning prediction.<ref>{{Harvnb|Tierney|1993|p=11}}.</ref></blockquote>		Though the AHWG report disproved both Browning's claims of prior success and the basis of his "projection", it made little impact after a year of continued claims of a successful prediction. Browning's prediction received the support of geophysicist David Stewart,{{efn|1=Previously involved in a psychic prediction of an earthquake for North Carolina in 1975,<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=13 }}</ref> Stewart sent a 13 page memo to a number of colleagues extolling Browning's supposed accomplishments, including predicting Loma Prieta.<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=29 }}.</ref>}} and the tacit endorsement of many public authorities in their preparations for a major disaster, all of which was amplified by massive exposure in the news media.<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|loc=throughout}}.</ref> Nothing happened on 3 December,<ref>{{Harvnb|Tierney|1993|p=11}}.</ref> and Browning died of a heart attack seven months later.<ref>{{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|pp=4 , 40 }}.</ref>
			=== 2004 and 2005: Southern California, U.S. (Keilis-Borok) ===
	On December 3, despite tidal forces and the presence of some 30 TV and radio crews: nothing happened.<ref>A subsequent brochure for a Browning video tape stated: "the media got it wrong." {{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|p=40 }}. Browning died of a heart-attack seven months later (p. 4 ).</ref>
	===1998: Iceland (Crampin)===
	{{anchor|Crampin}}
	{{Harvtxt|Crampin|Volti|Stefánsson|1999}} claimed a successful prediction – what they called a ''stress forecast'' – of an M 5 earthquake in Iceland on 13 November 1998 through observations of what is called ]. This claim has been disputed;<ref>{{Harvnb|Jordan|Jones|2011}}.</ref> a rigorous statistical analysis found that the result was as likely due to chance as not.<ref>{{Harvnb|Seher|Main|2004}}.</ref>
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big> "The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, with its lack of obvious precursors, demonstrates that reliable short-term earthquake prediction still is not achievable." </big>
	|source= — {{Harvnb|Bakun|Aagaard|Dost|Ellsworth|2005}}
	}}
	===2004 & 2005: Southern California, USA (Keilis-Borok)===
	{{anchor|Southern California}}		{{anchor|Southern California}}
	The ] algorithm (developed under the leadership of Dr. ] at ]) gained considerable respect by the apparently successful predictions of the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes.<ref>{{Harvnb|CEPEC|2004a}}; {{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=145–146}}.</ref> Great interest was therefore generated by the announcement in early 2004 of a predicted M ≥ 6.4 earthquake to occur somewhere within an area of southern California of approximately 12,000 sq. miles, on or before 5 September 2004.<ref>{{Harvnb|CEPEC|2004a}}.</ref> In evaluating this prediction the ] (CEPEC) noted that this method had not yet made enough predictions for statistical validation, and was sensitive to input assumptions. It therefore concluded that no "special public policy actions" were warranted, though it reminded all Californians "of the significant seismic hazards throughout the state."<ref>{{harvnb|CEPEC|2004a}}.</ref> The predicted earthquake did not occur.		The ] algorithm (developed under the leadership of ] at ]) gained respect by the apparently successful predictions of the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes.<ref>{{Harvnb|CEPEC|2004a}}; {{Harvnb|Hough|2010b|pp=145–146}}.</ref> Great interest was therefore generated by the prediction in early 2004 of a M ≥ 6.4 earthquake to occur somewhere within an area of southern California of approximately 12,000 sq. miles, on or before 5 September 2004.<ref name=":11"/> In evaluating this prediction the ] (CEPEC) noted that this method had not yet made enough predictions for statistical validation, and was sensitive to input assumptions. It therefore concluded that no "special public policy actions" were warranted, though it reminded all Californians "of the significant seismic hazards throughout the state."<ref name=":11"/> The predicted earthquake did not occur.
	A very similar prediction was made for an earthquake on or before August 14, 2005, in approximately the same area of southern California. The CEPEC's evaluation and recommendation were essentially the same, this time noting that the previous prediction and two others had not been fulfilled.<ref>{{Harvnb|CEPEC|2004b}}.</ref> This prediction also failed.		A very similar prediction was made for an earthquake on or before 14 August 2005, in approximately the same area of southern California. The CEPEC's evaluation and recommendation were essentially the same, this time noting that the previous prediction and two others had not been fulfilled.<ref>{{Harvnb|CEPEC|2004b}}.</ref> This prediction also failed.
	{{quote box
	|width= 40%
	|salign= right
	|quote= <big>"Despite over a century of scientific effort, the understanding of earthquake predictability remains immature." </big>
	|source= — ICEF, 2011<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011}}, p. 360.</ref>
	}}
	===2009: L'Aquila, Italy (Giuliani)===		=== 2009: L'Aquila, Italy (Giuliani) ===
	{{anchor|L'Aquila}}{{anchor|Guiliani}}		{{Main|2009 L'Aquila earthquake}}
	At 3:32 in the morning of 6 April 2009, the ] region of central Italy was rocked by a magnitude M 6.3 earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011}}, p. 320.</ref> In the city of L'Aquila and surrounding area some sixty thousand buildings, including many homes, collapsed or were seriously damaged, resulting in 308 deaths and 67,500 people left homeless.<ref>{{Harvnb|Alexander|2010}}, p. 326.</ref> Hard upon the news of the earthquake came news that a Giampaolo Giuliani had predicted this earthquake, had tried to warn the public, but had been muzzled by the Italian government.<ref>{{Harvnb|The Telegraph, 6 April|2009}}. See also {{Harvnb|McIntyre|2009}}.</ref>		At 03:32 on 6 April 2009, the ] region of central Italy was rocked by a magnitude M 6.3 earthquake.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=320}}.</ref> In the city of ] and surrounding area around 60,000 buildings collapsed or were seriously damaged, resulting in 308 deaths and 67,500 people left homeless.<ref>{{Harvnb|Alexander|2010|p=326}}.</ref> Around the same time, it was reported that Giampaolo Giuliani had predicted the earthquake, had tried to warn the public, but had been muzzled by the Italian government.<ref>{{Harvnb|Squires|Rayne|2009}}; {{Harvnb|McIntyre|2009}}.</ref>
	Closer examination shows a more subtle story. Giampaolo Giuliani is a laboratory technician at the ]. As a hobby he has for some years been monitoring ] (a short-lived radioactive gas that has been implicated as an earthquake precursor), using instruments he has designed and built. Prior to the L'Aqulia earthquake he was unknown to the scientific community, and had not published any kind of scientific work.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hall|2011}}, p. 267.</ref> Giuliani's rise to fame may be dated to when he was interviewed on March 24, 2009, by an Italian-language blog, ''Donne Democratiche'', about a swarm of low-level earthquakes in the Abruzzo region that had started the previous December. He reportedly said that this swarm was normal, and would diminish by the end of March. On March 30 L'Aquila was struck by a magnitude 4.0 tremblor, the largest to date.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|2009}}.</ref>		Giampaolo Giuliani was a laboratory technician at the ]. As a hobby he had for some years been monitoring radon using instruments he had designed and built. Prior to the L'Aquila earthquake he was unknown to the scientific community, and had not published any scientific work.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hall|2011|p=267}}.</ref> He had been interviewed on 24 March by an Italian-language blog, ''Donne Democratiche'', about a swarm of low-level earthquakes in the Abruzzo region that had started the previous December. He said that this swarm was normal and would diminish by the end of March. On 30 March, L'Aquila was struck by a magnitude 4.0 temblor, the largest to date.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|2009}}.</ref>
			On 27 March Giuliani warned the mayor of L'Aquila there could be an earthquake within 24 hours, and an earthquake M~2.3 occurred.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dollar|2010}}.</ref> On 29 March he made a second prediction.<ref>{{Harvtxt|ICEF|2011|p=323}} alludes to predictions made on 17 February and 10 March.</ref> He telephoned the mayor of the town of Sulmona, about 55 kilometers southeast of L'Aquila, to expect a "damaging" – or even "catastrophic" – earthquake within 6 to 24 hours. Loudspeaker vans were used to warn the inhabitants of Sulmona to evacuate, with consequential panic. No quake ensued and Giuliano was cited for inciting public alarm and enjoined from making future public predictions.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|2009}}; {{Harvnb|Hall|2011|p=267}}; {{Harvnb|Alexander|2010|p=330}}.</ref>
	One source says that on the 27th Giuliani warned the mayor of L'Aquila there could be an earthquake with 24 hours. As indeed there was – but none larger than about M 2.3.<ref>{{Harvnb|The Guardian, 5 April|2010}}.</ref>
			After the L'Aquila event Giuliani claimed that he had found alarming rises in radon levels just hours before.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|2009}}; {{Harvnb|Squires|Rayne|2009}}.</ref> He said he had warned relatives, friends and colleagues on the evening before the earthquake hit.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dollar|2010}}; {{Harvnb|Kerr|2009}}.</ref> He was subsequently interviewed by the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection, which found that Giuliani had not transmitted a valid prediction of the mainshock to the civil authorities before its occurrence.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|pp=323, 335}}.</ref>
	On March 29 he made a second prediction.<ref>The {{Harvtxt|ICEF|2011|p=323}} alludes to predictions made on February 17 and March 10.</ref> The details are hazy, but apparently he telephoned the mayor of the town of Sulmona, about 55 kilometers southeast of L'Aquila, to expect a "damaging" – or even "catastrophic" – earthquake within 6 to 24 hours. This is the incident with the loudspeaker vans warning the inhabitants of ''Sulmona'' (not L'Aquila) to evacuate, with consequential panic. Nothing ensued, except Giuliano was cited for ''procurato allarme'' (inciting public alarm) and injoined from making public predictions.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|2009}}; {{Harvnb|Hall|2011}}, p. 267; {{Harvnb|Alexander|2010}}, p. 330.</ref>
	After the L'Aquila event Giuliani claimed that he had found alarming rises in radon levels just hours before.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kerr|2009}}; {{Harvnb|The Telegraph, 6 April|2009}}.</ref> Although he reportedly claimed to have "phoned urgent warnings to relatives, friends and colleagues" on the evening before the earthquake hit,<ref>{{Harvnb|The Guardian, 5 April|2010}}; {{Harvnb|Kerr|2009}}.</ref> the ''International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection'', after interviewing Giuliani, found that there had been no valid prediction of the mainshock before its occurrence.<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011}}, p. 323, and see also p. 335.</ref>
	{{further|2009 L'Aquila earthquake}}
	== Difficulty or impossibility ==		== Difficulty or impossibility ==
	As the preceding examples show, the record of earthquake prediction has been disappointing.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997}} found "no obvious successes".</ref> Even where earthquakes have unambiguously occurred within the parameters of a prediction, statistical analysis has generally shown these to be no better than lucky guesses. The optimism of the 1970s that routine prediction of earthquakes would be "soon", perhaps within ten years,<ref>{{Harvnb|PEP|1976|p=2}}.</ref> was coming up disappointingly short by the 1990s,<ref>{{Harvtxt|Kagan|1997b|p=505}} said: "The results of efforts to develop earthquake prediction methods over the last 30 years have been disappointing: after many monographs and conferences and thousands of papers we are no closer to a working forecast than we were in the 1960s".</ref> and many scientists began wondering why. By 1997 it was being positively stated that earthquakes can ''not'' be predicted,<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller |Jackson |Kagan|Mulargia |1997}}.</ref> which led to a notable debate in 1999 on whether prediction of individual earthquakes is a realistic scientific goal.<ref>{{Harvnb|Main|1999}}, "''Nature'' debates".</ref> For many the question is whether the prediction of individual earthquakes is merely hard, or intrinsically impossible.		As the preceding examples show, the record of earthquake prediction has been disappointing.<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|1997}} found "no obvious successes".</ref> The optimism of the 1970s that routine prediction of earthquakes would be "soon", perhaps within ten years,<ref>{{Harvnb|Panel on Earthquake Prediction|1976|p=2}}.</ref> was coming up disappointingly short by the 1990s,<ref>{{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b|p=505}} "The results of efforts to develop earthquake prediction methods over the last 30 years have been disappointing: after many monographs and conferences and thousands of papers we are no closer to a working forecast than we were in the 1960s".</ref> and many scientists began wondering why. By 1997 it was being positively stated that earthquakes can ''not'' be predicted,<ref name=":12"/> which led to a notable debate in 1999 on whether prediction of individual earthquakes is a realistic scientific goal.<ref>{{Harvnb|Main|1999}}.</ref>
	Earthquake prediction may have failed only because it is "fiendishly difficult"<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1997|p=1617}}.</ref> and still beyond the current competency of science. Despite the confident announcement four decades ago that seismology was "on the verge" of making reliable predictions,<ref>{{Harvnb|Scholz|Sykes|Aggarwal|1973}}.</ref> there may yet be an underestimation of the difficulties. As early as 1978 it was reported that earthquake rupture might be complicated by "heterogeneous distribution of mechanical properties along the fault",<ref>{{Harvnb|Kanamori|Stewart|1978|loc=abstract}}.</ref> and in 1986 that geometrical irregularities in the fault surface "appear to exert major controls on the starting and stopping of ruptures".<ref>{{Harvnb|Sibson|1986}}.</ref> Another study attributed significant differences in fault behavior to the maturity of the fault.<ref>{{Harvnb|Cowan|Nicol|Tonkin|1996}}. More mature faults presumably slip more readily because they have been ground smoother and flatter.</ref> These kinds of complexities are not reflected in current prediction methods.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Schwartz|Coppersmith|1984|pp=5696–7}} argued that the characteristics of fault rupture on a given fault "can be considered essentially constant through several seismic cycles". The expectation of a regular rate of occurrence that accounts for all other factors was rather disappointed by the lateness of the ].</ref>		Earthquake prediction may have failed only because it is "fiendishly difficult"<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1997|p=1617}}.</ref> and still beyond the current competency of science. Despite the confident announcement four decades ago that seismology was "on the verge" of making reliable predictions,<ref name=":4"/> there may yet be an underestimation of the difficulties. As early as 1978 it was reported that earthquake rupture might be complicated by "heterogeneous distribution of mechanical properties along the fault",<ref>{{Harvnb|Kanamori|Stewart|1978|loc=abstract}}.</ref> and in 1986 that geometrical irregularities in the fault surface "appear to exert major controls on the starting and stopping of ruptures".<ref>{{Harvnb|Sibson|1986}}.</ref> Another study attributed significant differences in fault behavior to the maturity of the fault.{{efn|1=More mature faults presumably slip more readily because they have been ground smoother and flatter.<ref>{{Harvnb|Cowan|Nicol|Tonkin|1996}}.</ref>}} These kinds of complexities are not reflected in current prediction methods.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Schwartz|Coppersmith|1984|pp=5696–7}} argued that the characteristics of fault rupture on a given fault "can be considered essentially constant through several seismic cycles". The expectation of a regular rate of occurrence that accounts for all other factors was rather disappointed by the lateness of the ].</ref>
	Seismology may even yet lack an adequate grasp of its most central concept, ]. A simulation that explored assumptions regarding the distribution of slip found results "not in agreement with the classical view of the elastic rebound theory". (This was attributed to details of fault heterogeneity not accounted for in the theory.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ziv|Cochard|Schmittbuhl|2007}}.</ref>)		Seismology may even yet lack an adequate grasp of its most central concept, ]. A simulation that explored assumptions regarding the distribution of slip found results "not in agreement with the classical view of the elastic rebound theory". (This was attributed to details of fault heterogeneity not accounted for in the theory.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ziv|Cochard|Schmittbuhl|2007}}.</ref>)
	Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible. It has been argued that the Earth is in a state of ] "where any small earthquake has some probability of cascading into a large event".<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1997|p=1616}}; {{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b|p=517}}. See also {{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b|p=520}}, {{Harvnb|Vidale|1996}} and especially {{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc= §9.1, "Chaos, SOC, and predictability"}}.</ref> It has also been argued on decision-theoretic grounds that "prediction of major earthquakes is, in any practical sense, impossible."<ref>{{Harvnb|Matthews|1997}}.</ref>		Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible. In 1997, it has been argued that the Earth is in a state of ] "where any small earthquake has some probability of cascading into a large event".<ref>{{Harvnb|Geller|Jackson|Kagan|Mulargia|1997|p=1616}}; {{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b|p=517}}. See also {{Harvnb|Kagan|1997b|p=520}}, {{Harvnb|Vidale|1996}} and especially {{Harvnb|Geller|1997|loc=§9.1, "Chaos, SOC, and predictability"}}.</ref> It has also been argued on decision-theoretic grounds that "prediction of major earthquakes is, in any practical sense, impossible."<ref>{{Harvnb|Matthews|1997}}.</ref> In 2021, a multitude of authors from a variety of universities and research institutes studying the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite reported<ref>{{Harvnb|Martucci|Sparvoli|Bartocci|Battiston|2021}}</ref> that the claims based on self-organized criticality stating that at any moment any small earthquake can eventually cascade to a large event, do not stand<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Sarlis|Skordas|2020}}</ref> in view of the results obtained to date by ].
	That earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed<ref>E.g., {{Harvnb|Sykes|Shaw|Scholz|1999}} and {{Harvnb|Evison|1999}}.</ref> But the best disproof of impossibility – effective earthquake prediction – has yet to be demonstrated.<ref>"Despite over a century of scientific effort, the understanding of earthquake predictability remains immature. This lack of understanding is reflected in the inability to predict large earthquakes in the deterministic short-term sense." {{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=360}}.</ref>		That earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed,<ref>E.g., {{Harvnb|Sykes|Shaw|Scholz|1999}} and {{Harvnb|Evison|1999}}.</ref> but the best disproof of impossibility – effective earthquake prediction – has yet to be demonstrated.{{efn|1="Despite over a century of scientific effort, the understanding of earthquake predictability remains immature. This lack of understanding is reflected in the inability to predict large earthquakes in the deterministic short-term sense."<ref>{{Harvnb|ICEF|2011|p=360}}.</ref>}}
			== See also ==
	{{quote box
			{{cmn|colwidth=27em|
	|width= 40%
			* ]
	|salign= right
			* ]
	|quote= <big>"... predicting earthquakes is challenging and maybe possible in the future ..."</big>
			* ]
	|source= – {{Harvnb|Amoruso|Crescentini|2012}}
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
	}}		}}
	{{clear right}}
	==See also==		== Notes ==
			{{notelist|40em}}
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	==Notes==		== References ==
	{{Reflist|24em}}		{{Reflist}}
	==References==		== Sources ==
			{{refbegin|40em}}
	{{div col||30em}} {{refbegin}}
			* {{citation|last1=Aceves|first1=Richard L.|last2=Park|first2=Stephen K.|last3=Strauss|first3=David J.|date=27 May 1996|title=Statistical evaluation of the VAN Method using the historic earthquake catalog in Greece|journal=Geophysical Research Letters|volume=23|issue=11|pages=1425–1428|doi=10.1029/96GL01478|issn=1944-8007|bibcode=1996GeoRL..23.1425A}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation|ref={{harvid|AHWG|1990}}|author=((The Ad Hoc Working Group on the December 2–3, 1990, Earthquake Prediction &#91;AHWG&#93;))|date=18 October 1990|title=Evaluation of the December 2–3, 1990, New Madrid Seismic Zone Prediction}}. Reproduced in {{Harvp|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993|loc=Appendix B|pp=45–66 }}.
	|ref= CITEREFAHWG1990
			* {{citation
	|author= The Ad Hoc Working Group on the December 2—3, 1990, Earthquake Prediction &#91;AHWG&#93;
	|date= 18 October 1990
	|title= Evaluation of the December 2-3, 1990, New Madrid Seismic Zone Prediction
	}}. Included in App. B of {{Harvnb|Spence|Herrmann|Johnston|Reagor|1993}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Aggarwal |first1= Yash P.		|last1= Aggarwal |first1= Yash P.
	|last2= Sykes |first2= Lynn R.		|last2= Sykes |first2= Lynn R.
Line 421:		Line 292:
	|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research		|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research
	|volume= 80 |issue= 5|pages= 718–732		|volume= 80 |issue= 5|pages= 718–732
	|doi = 10.1029/JB080i005p00718		|doi = 10.1029/JB080i005p00718
	|bibcode = 1975JGR....80..718A		|bibcode = 1975JGR....80..718A
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Alexander |first1= David E.		|last1= Alexander |first1= David E.
	|year= 2010		|year= 2010
	|title= The L'Aquila Earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian Government Policy on Disaster Response		|title= The L'Aquila Earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian Government Policy on Disaster Response
	|journal= Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research		|journal= Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research
	|volume= 2 |issue= 4 |pages= 325–342		|volume= 2 |issue= 4 |pages= 325–342
	|doi= 10.1080/19390459.2010.511450		|doi= 10.1080/19390459.2010.511450
			|bibcode= 2010JNRPR...2..325A
	|url= http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19390459.2010.511450
			|s2cid= 153641723
	}}.
			|doi-access= free
	*{{citation
			}}.
	|last1= Allen |first1= C.R.
	|year= 1976
			* {{citation
			|last1= Allen |first1= Clarence R.
			|date= December 1976
	|title= Responsibilities in earthquake prediction		|title= Responsibilities in earthquake prediction
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 66 |issue= 6 |pages= 2069–2074		|volume= 66 |issue= 6 |pages= 2069–2074
	|doi=		|doi= 10.1785/BSSA0660062069
			|bibcode= 1976BuSSA..66.2069A
	}}.
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Allen |first1= Clarence R.		|last1= Allen |first1= Clarence R.
	|date= December 1982		|date= December 1982
	|title= Earthquake Prediction – 1982 Overview		|title= Earthquake Prediction – 1982 Overview
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Ammerica		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 72 |issue= 6B |page= S331—S335		|volume= 72 |issue= 6B |page= S331–S335
			|doi= 10.1785/BSSA07206B0331
	}}.
			|bibcode= 1982BuSSA..72S.331A
	*{{citation
			|url= https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20140903-144831698
			}}.
			* {{cite conference
	|last1= Allen |first1= Clarence R.		|last1= Allen |first1= Clarence R.
	|year= 1983		|year= 1983
	|contribution= The Southern California Earthquake Prediction of 1976 : A Prediction Unfulfilled		|title= The Southern California Earthquake Prediction of 1976: A Prediction Unfulfilled
	|contribution-url= http://www.crid.or.cr/digitalizacion/pdf/eng/doc15926/doc15926-contenido.pdf		|url= http://www.crid.or.cr/digitalizacion/pdf/eng/doc15926/doc15926-contenido.pdf
	|title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories		|book-title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories
	|publisher= UNDRO		|publisher= UNDRO
	|location= Geneva, 12–15 October 1982		|conference= Geneva, 12–15 October 1982
	|pages= 77–82		|pages= 77–82
	}}.		}}
	*{{Citation		*{{Citation
			|last1= Anagnostopoulos |first1= Stavros A.
	|ref= CITEREFAnonymous1977
			|title= Letter
	|author= Anonymous &#91;Haicheng Earthquake Study Delegation&#93;
	|date= May 1977		|date= June 1998
			|journal= Physics Today
	|title= Prediction of the Haicheng Earthquake
			|volume= 51
	|journal= ]
	|volume= 58 |issue= 5 |pages= 236–272		|issue= 6
			|page= 96
	|doi= 10.1029/EO058i005p00236
			|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/PHYS_TODAY_1998.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140323092639/http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/PHYS_TODAY_1998.pdf|archive-date=2014-03-23
	|url= http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/EO058i005p00236/pdf
			|doi=10.1063/1.882266
	|bibcode = 1977EOSTr..58..236. }}. <small>(Sometimes cited as Raleigh, et al., 1977.)</small>
			|bibcode= 1998PhT....51f..15S
	*{{citation
			}}.
			* {{citation
			|first1 = C. | last1 = Apostolidis
			|url= http://www.ethnos.gr/koinonia/arthro/problepsi_gia_seismo_6_rixter-444473/
			|title= Problepsi gia seismo 6 rixter
			|date= 2008-02-10
			|website= ]
			|publisher= Pegasus Publishing
			|language= el
			|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160715213217/http://www.ethnos.gr/koinonia/arthro/problepsi_gia_seismo_6_rixter-444473/
			|archive-date= 2016-07-15 |access-date= 2016-07-16
			|url-status= live
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Atwood |first1= L. Erwin		|last1= Atwood |first1= L. Erwin
	|last2= Major |first2= Ann Marie		|last2= Major |first2= Ann Marie
Line 475:		Line 373:
	|journal= International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters		|journal= International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters
	|volume= 16 |issue= 3 |pages= 279–302		|volume= 16 |issue= 3 |pages= 279–302
			|doi= 10.1177/028072709801600303
			|s2cid= 111790086
	|url= http://www.ijmed.org/articles/337/download/		|url= http://www.ijmed.org/articles/337/download/
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Bakun |first1= W. H.		|last1= Bakun |first1= W. H.
	|last2= Aagaard |first2= B.		|last2= Aagaard |first2= B.
Line 486:		Line 387:
	|last7= Ji |first7= C.		|last7= Ji |first7= C.
	|last8= Johnston |first8= M. J. S.		|last8= Johnston |first8= M. J. S.
			|last9= Langbein |first9= J.
	|coauthors= Langbein, J.; Lienkaemper, J. J.; Michael, A. J. ; Murray, J. R.; Nadeau, R. M. ; Reasenberg, P. A.; Reichle, M. S.; Roeloffs, E. A.; Shakal, A.; Simpson, R. W.; and Waldhauser, F.
			|last10= Lienkaemper |first10= J. J.
			|last11= Michael |first11= A. J.
			|last12= Murray |first12= J. R.
			|last13= Nadeau |first13= R. M.
			|last14= Reasenberg |first14= P. A.
			|last15= Reichle |first15= M. S.
			|last16= Roeloffs |first16= E. A.
			|last17= Shakal |first17= A.
			|last18= Simpson |first18= R. W.
			|last19= Simpson |first19= R. W.
			|last20= Waldhauser |first20= F.
	|date= 13 October 2005		|date= 13 October 2005
	|title= Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake		|title= Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake
	|journal= Nature		|journal= Nature
	|volume= 437 |pages= 969–974		|volume= 437 |issue= 7061 |pages= 969–974
	|doi= 10.1038/nature04067		|doi= 10.1038/nature04067
			|pmid= 16222291
	|url= http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7061/abs/nature04067.html
	|bibcode = 2005Natur.437..969B }}.		|bibcode = 2005Natur.437..969B
			|s2cid= 4389712
	*{{citation
			|url=https://authors.library.caltech.edu/56326/6/nature04067-s5.doc
			}}.<!-- https://authors.library.caltech.edu/56326/2/nature04067-s1.pdf-->
			* {{cite report
	|last1= Bakun |first1= W.H.		|last1= Bakun |first1= W.H.
	|last2= Breckenridge |first2= K.S.		|last2= Breckenridge |first2= K.S.
	|last3= Bredehoeft |first3= J.		|last3= Bredehoeft |first3= J. |author3-link=John D. Bredehoeft
	|last4= Burford |first4= R.O.		|last4= Burford |first4= R.O.
	|last5= Ellsworth |first5= W.L.		|last5= Ellsworth |first5= W.L.
Line 503:		Line 419:
	|last7= Jones |first7= L.		|last7= Jones |first7= L.
	|last8= Lindh |first8= A.G.		|last8= Lindh |first8= A.G.
			|first9= C. |last9= Mortensen
	|coauthors= C. Mortensen; R.J. Mueller; C.M. Poley; E. Roeloffs; S. Schulz; P. Segall; and W. Thatcher
			|first10= R. J. |last10= Mueller
			|first11= C. M. |last11= Poley
			|first12= E. |last12= Roeloffs
			|first13= S. |last13= Schulz
			|first14= P. |last14= Segall
			|first15= W. |last15= Thatcher
	|date= 1 May 1987		|date= 1 May 1987
	|title= Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Scenarios and Response Plans		|title= Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Scenarios and Response Plans
	|journal= U.S. Geological Survey		|publisher= United States Geological Survey
	|volume= Open-File Report 87-192		|id= Open-File Report 87-192
	|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/0192/report.pdf		|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/0192/report.pdf
	}}.		}}
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Bakun |first1= W. H.		|last1= Bakun |first1= W. H.
	|last2= Lindh |first2= A. G.		|last2= Lindh |first2= A. G.
	|year= 1985		|date= 16 August 1985
	|title= The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Experiment		|title= The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Experiment
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 229 |pages= 619–624		|volume= 229 |issue= 4714 |pages= 619–624
	|doi= 10.1126/science.229.4714.619		|doi= 10.1126/science.229.4714.619
			|pmid= 17739363
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/229/4714/619.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1985Sci...229..619B }}.		|bibcode = 1985Sci...229..619B
			|s2cid= 40899434
	*{{citation
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Bakun |first1= W. H.		|last1= Bakun |first1= W. H.
	|last2= McEvilly |first2= T. V.		|last2= McEvilly |first2= T. V.
Line 526:		Line 452:
	|title= Earthquakes near Parkfield, California: Comparing the 1934 and 1966 Sequences		|title= Earthquakes near Parkfield, California: Comparing the 1934 and 1966 Sequences
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 205 |pages= 1375–1377		|volume= 205 |issue= 4413 |pages= 1375–1377
			|bibcode = 1979Sci...205.1375B
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/205/4413/1375.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1979Sci...205.1375B |doi = 10.1126/science.205.4413.1375 }}.		|doi = 10.1126/science.205.4413.1375
			|pmid= 17732330
	*{{citation
			|s2cid= 28922627
	|last1= Barnes |first1= Lindsey
			}}.
	|last2= Schultz |first2= David M.
	|last3= Gruntfest |first3= Eve C.
			* {{Citation
	|last4= Hayden |first4= Mary H.
	|last5= Benight |first5= Charles C.
	|year= 2009
	|title= CORRIGENDUM: False Alarm Rate or False Alarm Ratio?
	|journal= Weather and Forecasting
	|volume= 24 |pages= 1452–1454
	|doi= 10.1175/2009WAF2222300.1
	|url= http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009WAF2222300.1
	|bibcode = 2009WtFor..24.1452B
	}}.
	*{{Citation
	|last1= Bernard |first1= P.		|last1= Bernard |first1= P.
	|year= 1992		|date= 10 November 1992
	|title= Plausibility of long distance electrotelluric precursors to earthquakes		|title= Plausibility of long distance electrotelluric precursors to earthquakes
	|journal= ]		|journal= ]
	|volume= 97 |pages= 17531–17546		|volume= 97 |issue= B12
			|pages= 17531–17546
	|doi= 10.1029/92JB01215		|doi= 10.1029/92JB01215
	|bibcode= 1992JGR....9717531B		|bibcode= 1992JGR....9717531B
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|last1= Bernard |first1= P.		|last1= Bernard |first1= P.
	|last2= LeMouel |first2= J. L.		|last2= LeMouel |first2= J. L.
	|year= 1996		|year= 1996
	|chapter= On electrotelluric signals		|chapter= On electrotelluric signals
	|title= A critical review of VAN		|title= A critical review of VAN |pages= 118–154
	|pages= 118–154
	|publisher= Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific		|publisher= Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific
	|place= London		|place= London
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
			|last1=Biagi|first1=P. F.
			|last2=Maggipinto|first2=T.
			|last3=Righetti|first3=F.
			|last4=Loiacono|first4=D.
			|last5=Schiavulli|first5=L.
			|last6=Ligonzo|first6=T.
			|last7=Ermini|first7=A.
			|last8=Moldovan|first8=I. A.
			|last9=Moldovan|first9=A. S.
			|last10=Buyuksarac|first10=A.
			|last11=Silva|first11=H. G.
			|date=2011-02-07
			|title=The European VLF/LF radio network to search for earthquake precursors: setting up and natural/man-made disturbances
			|url=https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/333/2011/
			|journal=Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
			|volume=11|issue=2|pages=333–341
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-11-333-2011
			|bibcode=2011NHESS..11..333B
			|issn=1561-8633
			|doi-access=free
			|hdl=10174/4717
			|hdl-access=free
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Bolt |first1= Bruce A.
			|year= 1993
			|title= Earthquakes and geological discovery
			|publisher= Scientific American Library
			|isbn= 0-7167-5040-6
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Bowman |first1= D. D.		|last1= Bowman |first1= D. D.
	|last2= Quillon |first2= G.		|last2= Quillon |first2= G.
Line 571:		Line 522:
	|title= An observational test of the critical earthquake concept		|title= An observational test of the critical earthquake concept
	|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research		|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research
	|volume= 103 |issue= 10 |pages= 24,359–24,372		|volume= 103 |issue= 10 |pages= 24, 359–24, 372
	|doi=		|doi=10.1029/98jb00792
	|url= http://geology.fullerton.edu/dbowman/Bowman%20_et_al_1998.pdf		|url= http://geology.fullerton.edu/dbowman/Bowman%20_et_al_1998.pdf
			|bibcode= 1998JGR...10324359B
	}}.
			|arxiv = cond-mat/9803204
	*{{citation
			|s2cid= 118922519
	|ref= CITEREFCEPEC2004a
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|first1= Roger |last1= Brown
			|first2= James |last2= Kulik
			|year= 1977
			|title= Flashbulb memories
			|journal= Cognition
			|volume= 5 |issue= 1 |pages= 73–99
			|doi= 10.1016/0010-0277(77)90018-X
			|s2cid= 53195074
			}}.
			* {{citation
			|ref= {{harvid|CEPEC|2004a}}
	|author= California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council		|author= California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
	|year= 2004a		|date= 2 March 2004a
	|date= 2 March 2004
	|title= Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services		|title= Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services
	|url= http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pdf.files/CEPEC_KB-Report_3-2-4.pdf		|url= http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pdf.files/CEPEC_KB-Report_3-2-4.pdf
			|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130429150944/http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pdf.files/CEPEC_KB-Report_3-2-4.pdf|archive-date=2013-04-29
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|ref= CITEREFCEPEC2004b
			|ref= {{harvid|CEPEC|2004b}}
	|author= California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council		|author= California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
	|year= 2004b		|date= 9 December 2004b
	|date= 9 December 2004
	|title= Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services		|title= Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services
	|url= http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument		|url= http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
			|last1= Campbell |first1= W. H.
			|s2cid= 18246478
			|date= May 2009
			|title= Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors, preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake
			|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research
			|volume= 114 |issue= A5|pages= A05307
			|doi = 10.1029/2008JA013932
			|bibcode = 2009JGRA..114.5307C
			|doi-access= free
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Cartlidge |first1= Edwin		|last1= Cartlidge |first1= Edwin
	|date= 3 June 2011		|date= 3 June 2011
	|title= Quake Experts to Be Tried For Manslaughter		|title= Quake Experts to Be Tried For Manslaughter
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 332 |page= :1135–1136		|volume= 332 |issue= 6034 |pages= 1135–1136
			|bibcode = 2011Sci...332.1135C|doi=10.1126/science.332.6034.1135
	|doi=
			|pmid= 21636750
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1135.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 2011Sci...332.1135C
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Cartlidge |first1= Edwin		|last1= Cartlidge |first1= Edwin
	|date= 12 October 2012		|date= 12 October 2012
	|title= Aftershocks in the Courtroom		|title= Aftershocks in the Courtroom
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 338 |pages= 184–188		|volume= 338 |issue= 6104 |pages= 184–188
	|doi= 10.1126/science.338.6104.184		|doi= 10.1126/science.338.6104.184
			|pmid= 23066054
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/184.full
			|bibcode= 2012Sci...338..184C
			}}.
			* {{citation
			|last1= Castellaro |first1=S.
			|editor1-last= Mulargia |editor1-first= Francesco
			|editor2-last= Geller |editor2-first= Robert J.
			|chapter= §2.4.3. The classical earthquake model
			|title=Earthquake science and seismic risk reduction
			|year=2003
			|publisher=Kluwer Academic Publishers
			|location=Dordrecht
			|isbn=978-1-4020-1778-0
			|pages= 56–57
			|chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=tIm-sXDVIiIC&pg=PA56
	}}.		}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Christopoulos|first1=Stavros-Richard G.
			|last2=Skordas|first2=Efthimios S.
			|last3=Sarlis|first3=Nicholas V.
			|date=2020-01-17
			|title=On the Statistical Significance of the Variability Minima of the Order Parameter of Seismicity by Means of Event Coincidence Analysis
			|journal=Applied Sciences
			|volume=10|issue=2|page=662
			|doi=10.3390/app10020662
			|issn=2076-3417
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			*{{Citation
			|first1= G. |last1= Chouliaras
			|first2= G. |last2= Stavrakakis
			|date= 1999
			|title= Support for VAN's earthquake predictions is based on false statements.
			|journal= Eos Trans. AGU
			|volume= 80 |issue= 19 |page= 216
			|bibcode= 1999EOSTr..80..216C
			|doi= 10.1029/99EO00166
			|url= http://members.noa.gr/g.choul/en/VAN_EOS_1999.pdf
			}}.
	*{{citation		*{{citation
			|first1 = G. |last1 = Chouliaras
			|title= Seismicity anomalies prior to 8 June 2008 earthquake in Western Greece
			|journal= Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
			|date= 2009
			|volume= 9
			|pages= 327–335
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-9-327-2009
			|doi-access= free
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Cicerone |first1= Robert D.		|last1= Cicerone |first1= Robert D.
	|last2= Ebel |first2= John E.		|last2= Ebel |first2= John E.
Line 617:		Line 648:
	|title= A systematic compilation of earthquake precursors		|title= A systematic compilation of earthquake precursors
	|journal= Tectonophysics		|journal= Tectonophysics
	|volume= 476 |issue= 3—4 |pages= 371–396		|volume= 476 |issue= 3–4 |pages= 371–396
	|doi= 10.1016/j.tecto.2009.06.008		|doi= 10.1016/j.tecto.2009.06.008
	|url= http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/17754583/723157343/name/A-systematic-compilation-of-earthquake-precursors_2009_Tectonophysics.pdf		|url= http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/17754583/723157343/name/A-systematic-compilation-of-earthquake-precursors_2009_Tectonophysics.pdf
	|bibcode = 2009Tectp.476..371C		|bibcode = 2009Tectp.476..371C
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
			|last1= Cannavò |first1= Flavio
			|last2= Arena |first2= Alessandra
			|last3= Monaco|first3= Carmelo
			|date= 2015
			|title= Local geodetic and seismic energy balance for shallow earthquake prediction
			|journal= Journal of Seismology
			|volume= 19|issue= 1|pages= 1–8
			|doi= 10.1007/s10950-014-9446-z
			|bibcode= 2015JSeis..19....1C
			|s2cid= 129258518
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Console |first1= R.		|last1= Console |first1= R.
	|date= 30 August 2001		|date= 30 August 2001
	|title= Testing earthquake forecast hypotheses		|title= Testing earthquake forecast hypotheses
	|journal= Tectonophysics		|journal= Tectonophysics
	|volume= 338 |issue= 3—4 |pages= 261–268		|volume= 338 |issue= 3–4 |pages= 261–268
	|doi= 10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00081-6		|doi= 10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00081-6
	|bibcode = 2001Tectp.338..261C		|bibcode = 2001Tectp.338..261C
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Cowan |first1= Hugh		|last1= Cowan |first1= Hugh
	|last2= Nicol |first2= Andrew		|last2= Nicol |first2= Andrew
Line 640:		Line 686:
	|volume= 101 |issue= B3 |pages= 6021–6036		|volume= 101 |issue= B3 |pages= 6021–6036
	|doi= 10.1029/95JB01588		|doi= 10.1029/95JB01588
			|bibcode = 1996JGR...101.6021C
	|url= http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/dspace/bitstream/10182/3334/1/Cowan-Nicol-Tonkin.pdf
			|hdl= 10182/3334
	|bibcode = 1996JGR...101.6021C }}.
			|hdl-access= free
	*{{citation
			}}.
	|last1= Crampin |first1= Stuart
	|date= November 1987
			* {{citation
	|title= The basis for earthquake prediction
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|volume= 91 |issue= 2 |pages= 331–347
	|bibcode = 1987GeoJI..91..331C |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1987.tb05230.x
	}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Crampin |first1= Stuart
	|last2= Volti |first2= Theodora
	|last3= Stefánsson |first3= Ragnar
	|year= 1999
	|title= A successfully stress-forecast earthquake
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|volume= 138 |issue= |page= F1—F5
	|doi= 10.1046/j.1365-246X.1999.00891.x
	|url= http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/scrampin/opinion/Crampin_etal.(1999).pdf
	|bibcode = 1999GeoJI.138....1X }}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Davies |first1= D.		|last1= Davies |first1= D.
	|year= 1975		|date= 27 November 1975
	|title= Earthquake prediction in China		|title= Earthquake prediction in China
	|journal= Nature		|journal= Nature
	|volume= 258 |issue= |pages= 286–287		|volume= 258 |issue= 5533|pages= 286–287
	|doi= 10.1038/258286a0		|doi= 10.1038/258286a0
	|bibcode = 1975Natur.258..286D		|bibcode = 1975Natur.258..286D
			|s2cid= 4266855
			|doi-access= free
			}}.
			* {{Cite journal|last1=DeVries|first1=Phoebe M. R.|last2=Viégas|first2=Fernanda|last3=Wattenberg|first3=Martin|last4=Meade|first4=Brendan J.|date=August 2018|title=Deep learning of aftershock patterns following large earthquakes|journal=Nature|volume=560|issue=7720|pages=632–634|doi=10.1038/s41586-018-0438-y|pmid=30158606|bibcode=2018Natur.560..632D|s2cid=52118714|issn=1476-4687|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0438-y}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Donges|first1=J.F.
			|last2=Schleussner|first2=C.-F.
			|last3=Siegmund|first3=J.F.
			|last4=Donner|first4=R.V.
			|date=2016
			|title=Event coincidence analysis for quantifying statistical interrelationships between event time series
			|journal=The European Physical Journal Special Topics
			|volume=225|issue=3|pages=471–487
			|doi=10.1140/epjst/e2015-50233-y
			|arxiv=1508.03534
			|s2cid=88520803
			|issn=1951-6355
			}}
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Drakopoulos |first1= J.
			|first2= G.N. |last2= Stavrakakis
			|first3= J. |last3= Latoussakis
			|date= 30 August 1993
			|title= Evaluation and interpretation of thirteen official van{{snd}}telegrams for the period September 10, 1986 to April 28, 1988.
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 224 |issue= 1–3 |pages= 223–236
			|doi= 10.1016/0040-1951(93)90075-U
			|bibcode= 1993Tectp.224..223D
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|ref= CITEREFThe_Guardian, 5 April2010
	|last1= Dollar |first1= John		|last1= Dollar |first1= John
	|date= 5 April 2010		|date= 5 April 2010
	|title= The man who predicted an earthquake		|title= The man who predicted an earthquake
	|newspaper= The Guardian		|newspaper= The Guardian
	|url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/laquila-earthquake-prediction-giampaolo-giuliani		|url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/laquila-earthquake-prediction-giampaolo-giuliani
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Eftaxias|first1=K.
			|last2=Athanasopoulou|first2=L.
			|last3=Balasis|first3=G.
			|last4=Kalimeri|first4=M.
			|last5=Nikolopoulos|first5=S.
			|last6=Contoyiannis|first6=Y.
			|last7=Kopanas|first7=J.
			|last8=Antonopoulos|first8=G.
			|last9=Nomicos|first9=C.
			|date=2009-11-25
			|title=Unfolding the procedure of characterizing recorded ultra low frequency, kHZ and MHz electromagetic anomalies prior to the L'Aquila earthquake as pre-seismic ones – Part 1
			|url=https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/1953/2009/
			|journal=Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
			|volume=9|issue=6|pages=1953–1971
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-9-1953-2009
			|arxiv=0910.0797
			|bibcode=2009NHESS...9.1953E
			|s2cid=226246369
			|issn=1561-8633
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Eftaxias|first1=K.
			|last2=Balasis|first2=G.
			|last3=Contoyiannis|first3=Y.
			|last4=Papadimitriou|first4=C.
			|last5=Kalimeri|first5=M.
			|last6=Athanasopoulou|first6=L.
			|last7=Nikolopoulos|first7=S.
			|last8=Kopanas|first8=J.
			|last9=Antonopoulos|first9=G.
			|last10=Nomicos|first10=C.
			|date=2010-02-16
			|title=Unfolding the procedure of characterizing recorded ultra low frequency, kHZ and MHz electromagnetic anomalies prior to the L'Aquila earthquake as pre-seismic ones – Part 2
			|url=https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/275/2010/
			|journal=Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
			|volume=10|issue=2|pages=275–294
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-10-275-2010
			|arxiv=0908.0686
			|bibcode=2010NHESS..10..275E
			|s2cid=73570989
			|issn=1561-8633
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|title=Earthquake-prediction technology deserves to be taken seriously (OPINION)
			|last1=Enriquez
			|first1=Alberto
			|date=2015
			|newspaper=OregonLive.com
			|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/12/earthquake-prediction_technolo.html
			|access-date=2016-11-19
			}}.
			* {{Citation
	|first1= R. |last1= Evans		|first1= R. |last1= Evans
	|date= December 1997		|date= December 1997
Line 684:		Line 802:
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International		|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 413–420		|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 413–420
	|url= http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gji.1997.131.issue-3/issuetoc		|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..413E |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06585.x
			|doi-access= free}}.
	|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..413E |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06585.x }}.
	*{{citation
			* {{cite journal
			|ref ={{harvid|Field et al.|2008}}
			|collaboration= Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
			|year= 2008
			|title= The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF2)
			|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America |publication-date=2009
			|id= Open-File Report 2007-1437 |volume=99 |issue= 4 |pages= 2053–2107
			|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1437/of2007-1437_text.pdf
			|bibcode= 2009BuSSA..99.2053F
			|display-authors=1 |last1= Field
			|last2= Dawson
			|last3= Felzer
			|last4= Frankel
			|last5= Gupta
			|last6= Jordan
			|last7= Parsons
			|last8= Petersen
			|last9= Stein
			|last10= Weldon
			|last11= Wills
			|doi= 10.1785/0120080049
			}}. Also published as .
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Filizzola |first1=C.
			|last2=Pergola |first2=N.
			|last3=Pietrapertosa |first3=C.
			|last4=Tramutoli |first4=V.
			|date=2004-01-01
			|title=Robust satellite techniques for seismically active areas monitoring: a sensitivity analysis on September 7, 1999 Athens's earthquake
			|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474706504000580
			|journal=Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C
			|series=Seismo Electromagnetics and Related Phenomena
			|volume=29|issue=4|pages=517–527
			|doi=10.1016/j.pce.2003.11.019
			|bibcode=2004PCE....29..517F
			|issn=1474-7065
			}}
			* {{citation
	|last1= Evison |first1= Frank		|last1= Evison |first1= Frank
	|date= October 1999		|date= October 1999
Line 692:		Line 850:
	|journal= Annali di Geofisica		|journal= Annali di Geofisica
	|volume= 42 |issue= 5 |pages= 763–770		|volume= 42 |issue= 5 |pages= 763–770
	|doi=
	|url= http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1416/1/01%20evison.pdf		|url= http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1416/1/01%20evison.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Garwin |first1= Laura
			|last1= Fraser-Smith |first1= A. C.
	|year= 1989
			|last2= Bernardi|first2= A.
			|last3= McGill|first3= P. R.
			|last4= Ladd|first4= M. E.
			|last5= Helliwell|first5= R. A.
			|last6= Villard|first6= O. G. Jr.
			|date= August 1990
			|title= Low-Frequency Magnetic Field Measurements Near the Epicenter of the Ms 7.1 Loma Prieta Earthquake
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 17 |issue= 9 |pages= 1465–1468
			|doi= 10.1029/GL017i009p01465
			|bibcode= 1990GeoRL..17.1465F
			}}.\
			* {{citation
			|last1=Freund |first1=Friedemann
			|date=2000-05-10
			|title=Time-resolved study of charge generation and propagation in igneous rocks
			|journal=Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
			|volume=105
			|issue=B5
			|pages=11001–11019
			|doi=10.1029/1999JB900423
			|issn=2156-2202
			|bibcode=2000JGR...10511001F
			|url=https://zenodo.org/record/1000687
			|doi-access=free
			}}.
			* {{citation
			|last1=Freund |first1=Friedemann T.
			|last2=Takeuchi |first2=Akihiro
			|last3=Lau |first3=Bobby W. S.
			|date=2006-01-01
			|title=Electric currents streaming out of stressed igneous rocks – A step towards understanding pre-earthquake low frequency EM emissions
			|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474706506000647
			|journal=Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C
			|series=Recent Progress in Seismo Electromagnetics and Related Phenomena
			|volume=31|issue=4|pages=389–396
			|doi=10.1016/j.pce.2006.02.027
			|bibcode=2006PCE....31..389F
			|issn=1474-7065
			}}
			* {{citation
			|last1=Freund |first1=Friedemann
			|last2=Sornette |first2=Didier
			|date=2007-02-20
			|title=Electro-magnetic earthquake bursts and critical rupture of peroxy bond networks in rocks
			|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004019510600463X
			|journal=Tectonophysics
			|volume=431|issue=1|pages=33–47
			|doi=10.1016/j.tecto.2006.05.032
			|arxiv=physics/0603205
			|bibcode=2007Tectp.431...33F
			|s2cid=45310425
			|issn=0040-1951
			}}
			* {{citation
			|last1=Freund |first1=Friedemann T.
			|last2=Kulahci |first2=Ipek G.
			|last3=Cyr |first3=Gary
			|last4=Ling |first4=Julia
			|last5=Winnick |first5=Matthew
			|last6=Tregloan-Reed |first6=Jeremy
			|last7=Freund |first7=Minoru M.
			|date=2009-12-01
			|title=Air ionization at rock surfaces and pre-earthquake signals
			|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682609001837
			|journal=Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
			|volume=71|issue=17|pages=1824–1834
			|doi=10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.013
			|bibcode=2009JASTP..71.1824F
			|issn=1364-6826
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Freund |first1=Friedemann
			|date=2010-10-01
			|title=Toward a unified solid state theory for pre-earthquake signals
			|journal=Acta Geophysica
			|volume=58|issue=5|pages=719–766
			|doi=10.2478/s11600-009-0066-x
			|bibcode=2010AcGeo..58..719F
			|s2cid=128744720
			|issn=1895-7455
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Freund|first1=Friedemann
			|last2=Stolc|first2=Viktor
			|date=2013
			|title=Nature of Pre-Earthquake Phenomena and their Effects on Living Organisms
			|journal=Animals
			|volume=3|issue=2|pages=513–531
			|doi=10.3390/ani3020513
			|pmid=26487415
			|pmc=4494396
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			* {{citation
			|last1= Garwin |first1= Laura|author-link= Laura Garwin
			|date= 26 October 1989
	|title= A successful prediction?		|title= A successful prediction?
	|journal= Nature		|journal= Nature
	|volume= 341 |issue= |page= 677		|volume= 341 |issue= 6244|page= 677
	|doi= 10.1038/341677a0		|doi= 10.1038/341677a0
	|bibcode = 1989Natur.341..677G }}.		|bibcode = 1989Natur.341..677G
			|s2cid= 658586
	*{{citation
			|doi-access= free
	|last1= Garza |first1= Tomás
	|last2= Lomnitz |first2= Cinna
	|year= 1979
	|title= The Oaxaca gap: A case history
	|journal= Pure and Applied Geophysics
	|volume= 117 |issue= 6 |pages= 1187–1194
	|doi= 10.1007/BF00876214 |bibcode=1979PApGe.117.1187G
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Geller |first1= Robert J.
			|last1= Geller |first1= Robert J.
	|date= 17 October 1991		|date= 17 October 1991
	|title= Unpredictable earthquakes &#91;response to Hamada&#93;		|title= Unpredictable earthquakes &#91;response to Hamada&#93;
	|journal= Nature		|journal= Nature
	|volume= 353 |issue= |page= 612 |doi = 10.1038/353612a0		|volume= 353 |issue= 6345|page= 612 |doi = 10.1038/353612a0
	|bibcode = 1991Natur.353..612G		|bibcode = 1991Natur.353..612G
			|s2cid= 5154447
	}}.
			|doi-access= free
	*{{Citation
			}}.
			* {{Citation
	|first1= R. J. |last1= Geller		|first1= R. J. |last1= Geller
	|date= 27 May 1996		|date= 1996a
			|chapter= Short-term earthquake prediction in Greece by seismic electric signals
	|title= Debate on evaluation of the VAN method: Editor's introduction
			|title= A Critical Review of VAN
			|pages= 155–238
			|editor1-last= Lighthill |editor1-first= J.
			|publisher= World Scientific
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|first1= R. J. |last1= Geller
			|date= 27 May 1996b
			|title= Debate on evaluation of the VAN method: Editor's introduction
	|journal= Geophysical Research Letters		|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
	|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1291–1293		|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1291–1293
	|doi= 10.1029/96GL00742		|doi= 10.1029/96GL00742
			|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1291G
	|url= http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.v23.11/issuetoc
			|doi-access= free
	|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1291G }}.
			}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Geller |first1= Robert J.
			* {{citation
			|last1= Geller |first1= Robert J.
	|date= December 1997		|date= December 1997
	|title= Earthquake prediction: a critical review.		|title= Earthquake prediction: a critical review.
Line 736:		Line 1,006:
	|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 425–450		|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 425–450
	|doi= 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x		|doi= 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x
	|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..425G		|doi-access= free
			|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..425G
			|url= http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/3/425.full.pdf
	}}
			}}{{dead link|date=May 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Geller |first1= Robert J.		|last1= Geller |first1= Robert J.
	|first2= David D. |last2= Jackson		|first2= David D. |last2= Jackson
	|first3= Yan Y. |last3= Kagan		|first3= Yan Y. |last3= Kagan
	|first4= Francesco |last4= Mulargia		|first4= Francesco |last4= Mulargia
	|date= 14 March 1997		|date= 14 March 1997
	|title= Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted		|title= Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 275 |page= 1616		|volume= 275 |issue= 5306
			|page= 1616
	|doi= 10.1126/science.275.5306.1616		|doi= 10.1126/science.275.5306.1616
			|s2cid= 123516228
	|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/Geller_et_al_1997.pdf		|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/Geller_et_al_1997.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			*{{Citation
	|ref= CITEREFGersony1982b
			|first1= Robert J. |last1= Geller
			|first2= David D. |last2= Jackson
			|first3= Yan Y. |last3= Kagan
			|first4= Francesco |last4= Mulargia
			|first5= Stathis |last5= Stiros
			|date= June 1998
			|title= Letter
			|journal= Physics Today
			|volume= 51
			|issue= 6
			|pages= 95–96
			|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/PHYS_TODAY_1998.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140323092639/http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/PHYS_TODAY_1998.pdf|archive-date=2014-03-23
			|doi=10.1063/1.882266
			|bibcode= 1998PhT....51f..15S
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Genzano |first1=N.
			|last2=Aliano |first2=C.
			|last3=Corrado |first3=R.
			|last4=Filizzola |first4=C.
			|last5=Lisi |first5=M.
			|last6=Mazzeo |first6=G.
			|last7=Paciello |first7=R.
			|last8=Pergola |first8=N.
			|last9=Tramutoli |first9=V.
			|date=2009-12-11
			|title=RST analysis of MSG-SEVIRI TIR radiances at the time of the Abruzzo 6 April 2009 earthquake
			|url=https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/2073/2009/
			|journal=Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
			|volume=9|issue=6|pages=2073–2084
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-9-2073-2009
			|bibcode=2009NHESS...9.2073G
			|issn=1561-8633
			|doi-access=free
			|hdl=11563/4343
			|hdl-access=free
			}}
			* {{citation
	|editor1-last= Gersony |editor1-first= Robert		|editor1-last= Gersony |editor1-first= Robert
	|date= 1982b		|date= October 1982
	|chapter= Selected Available Documentation: The Brady Earthquake Predictions		|chapter= Volume XIII, Selected Available Documentation: The Brady Earthquake Predictions. Book B, Reports, Memoranda, Correspondence and Other Communication – Chronological Collection 1981–1982
	|chapter-url= http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAT583.pdf		|chapter-url= http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAT583.pdf
	|title= The Lima Disaster Preparedness Report		|title= The Lima Disaster Preparedness Report
	|volume= XIII-B
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{cite conference
	|last= Giesecke |first= Albert A.
			|last1= Giesecke |first1= Albert A.
	|year= 1983		|year= 1983
	|chapter= Case history of the Peru prediction for 1980-1981		|title= Case history of the Peru prediction for 1980–1981
	|chapter-url= http://65.182.2.242/docum/crid/Septiembre-Octubre2005/CD-1/pdf/eng/doc15925/doc15925-contenido.pdf		|url= http://65.182.2.242/docum/crid/Septiembre-Octubre2005/CD-1/pdf/eng/doc15925/doc15925-contenido.pdf
	|title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories		|book-title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories
	|location= Geneva, 12–15 October 1982		|conference= Geneva, 12–15 October 1982
	|publisher= UNDPRO		|publisher= UNDPRO
	|pages= 51–74		|pages= 51–74
			}}
			* {{cite web|last=GR Reporter|title=Scientists from the VAN group are warning for a strong earthquake of 6 on the Richter scale|work=GR Reporter|date=8 August 2011|url= http://www.grreporter.info/en/scientists_van_group_are_warning_strong_earthquake_6_richter_scale/4951}}
			*{{Citation
			|first1= S. |last1= Gruszow
			|first2= J. C. |last2= Rossignol
			|first3= A. |last3= Tzanis
			|first4= J. L. |last4= Le Mouël
			|date= 1 August 1996
			|title= Identification and analysis of electromagnetic signals in Greece: the case of the Kozani earthquake VAN prediction
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 23 |issue= 16 |pages= 2025–2028
			|doi= 10.1029/96GL02170
			|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251432666 |bibcode=1996GeoRL..23.2025G
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Hall |first1= Stephen S.		|last1= Hall |first1= Stephen S.
	|date= 15 September 2011		|date= 15 September 2011
	|title= At Fault?		|title= At Fault?
	|journal= Nature		|journal= Nature
	|volume= 477 |issue= |pages= 264–269		|volume= 477 |issue= 7364|pages= 264–269
	|url= http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/pdf/477264a.pdf		|url= http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/pdf/477264a.pdf
	|bibcode = 2011Natur.477..264H |doi = 10.1038/477264a		|bibcode = 2011Natur.477..264H
			|doi = 10.1038/477264a
			|pmid= 21921895
	}}.
			|s2cid= 205067216
	*{{citation
			}}.
	|last1= Hamada |first1= K.
	|date= 17 October 1991
			* {{citation
	|title= Unpredictable earthquakes
			|first1 = K. |last1 = Hamada
	|journal= Nature
			|date = 17 October 1991
	|volume= 353 |issue= |pages= 611–612
			|title = Unpredictable earthquakes
			|journal = Nature
			|volume = 353 |issue = 6345 |pages = 611–612
	|doi = 10.1038/353611c0		|doi = 10.1038/353611c0
	|bibcode = 1991Natur.353..611H		|bibcode = 1991Natur.353..611H
			|s2cid = 4239462
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Hamada |first1= Kazuo
			|date= 30 August 1993
			|title= Statistical evaluation of the SES predictions issued in Greece: alarm and success rates
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 224 |issue= 1–3 |pages= 203–210
			|doi= 10.1016/0040-1951(93)90073-S
			|bibcode= 1993Tectp.224..203H
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{citation
			|first1 = Kazuo | last1 = Hamada
			|chapter = Re-examination of statistical evaluation of the SES prediction in Greece
			|editor-first = James |editor-last = Lighthill
			|title = A Critical Review of VAN – Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electrical Signals
			|year = 1996
			|isbn = 978-981-02-2670-1
			|publisher = World Scientific Publishing
			|location = London
			|pages = 286–291
			}}.
			* {{cite conference
	|first1= Robert M. |last1= Hamilton		|first1= Robert M. |last1= Hamilton
	|year= 1976		|year= 1976
			|title= The Status of Earthquake Prediction |conference= Earthquake Prediction{{snd}} Opportunity to Avert Disaster. A conference on earthquake warning and response held in San Francisco, California, on November 7, 1975.
	|chapter= The Status of Earthquake Prediction
			|publisher= United States Geological Survey
	|title= Earth Prediction — Opportunity to Avert Disaster
			|id= Circular 729 |pages= 6–9
	|journal= U.S. Geological Survey
			|conference-url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1976/0729/report.pdf
	|volume= Circular 729
			}}
	|pages= 6–9
	}}.
	*{{citation		* {{citation
	|last1= Hammond |first1= Allen L.		|last1= Hammond |first1= Allen L.
	|date= 23 May 1973		|date= 23 May 1973
	|title= Earthquake predictions: Breakthrough in theoretical insight?		|title= Earthquake predictions: Breakthrough in theoretical insight?
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 180 |pages= 851–853		|volume= 180 |issue= 4088 |pages= 851–853
	|doi= 10.1126/science.180.4088.851		|doi= 10.1126/science.180.4088.851
			|pmid= 17789254
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4088/851.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1973Sci...180..851H }}.		|bibcode = 1973Sci...180..851H
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Hammond |first1= Allen L.		|last1= Hammond |first1= Allen L.
	|date= 3 May 1974		|date= 3 May 1974
	|title= Dilatancy: Growing Acceptance as an Earthquake Mechanism		|title= Dilatancy: Growing Acceptance as an Earthquake Mechanism
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 184 |issue= |pages= 551–552		|volume= 184 |issue= 4136|pages= 551–552
	|doi= 10.1126/science.184.4136.551		|doi= 10.1126/science.184.4136.551
			|pmid= 17755025
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/184/4136/551.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1974Sci...184..551H }}.		|bibcode = 1974Sci...184..551H
			}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|first1= Allen L. |last1= Hammond		|first1= Allen L. |last1= Hammond
	|date= 7 February 1975		|date= 7 February 1975
	|title= Earthquake Prediction: Progress in California, Hesitation in Washington		|title= Earthquake Prediction: Progress in California, Hesitation in Washington
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 187 |issue= |pages= 419–420		|volume= 187 |issue= 4175|pages= 419–420
			|bibcode = 1975Sci...187..419H
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/187/4175/419.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1975Sci...187..419H |doi = 10.1126/science.187.4175.419 }}.		|doi = 10.1126/science.187.4175.419
			|pmid= 17835300
	*{{citation
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Hammond |first1= Allen L.		|last1= Hammond |first1= Allen L.
	|date= 7 May 1976		|date= 7 May 1976
	|title= Earthquakes: An evacuation in China, a warning in California		|title= Earthquakes: An evacuation in China, a warning in California
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 192 |pages= 538–539		|volume= 192 |issue= 4239 |pages= 538–539
	|bibcode = 1976Sci...192..538H |doi = 10.1126/science.192.4239.538		|bibcode = 1976Sci...192..538H
			|doi = 10.1126/science.192.4239.538
			|pmid= 17745640
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Hardebeck |first1= Jeanne L.
			|last1= Hardebeck |first1= Jeanne L.|author-link1= Jeanne L. Hardebeck
	|last2= Felzer |first2= Karen R.
	|last3= Michael |first3= Andrew J.		|last2= Felzer |first2= Karen R.
			|last3= Michael |first3= Andrew J.
	|year= 2008
			|date= August 2008
	|title= Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant		|title= Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant
	|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research		|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research
	|volume= 113 |issue= B08130 |pages=		|volume= 113 |issue= B08130 |page= 8310
	|doi= 10.1029/2007JB005410		|doi= 10.1029/2007JB005410
	|url= http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/kfelzer/HardebeckEtAl.pdf |bibcode=2008JGRB..113.8310H		|url= http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/kfelzer/HardebeckEtAl.pdf
			|bibcode=2008JGRB..113.8310H
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{cite report
	|last1= Harris |first1= Ruth A.
			|last1= Harris |first1= Ruth A.|author-link=Ruth Harris (scientist)
	|year= 1998		|year= 1998
	|title= The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Forecasts		|title= The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989{{snd}}Forecasts
	|publisher= U.S. Geological Survey		|publisher= United States Geological Survey
	|volume= Open-File Report 1550-B		|id= Open-File Report 1550-B
	|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1550/pp1550b/pp1550b.pdf		|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1550/pp1550b/pp1550b.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Harris |first1= Ruth A.
			|last1= Harris |first1= Ruth A.|author-link1=Ruth Harris (scientist)
	|last2= Arrowsmith |first2= J Ramon		|last2= Arrowsmith |first2= J Ramon
	|date= September 2006		|date= September 2006
	|title= Introduction to the Special Issue on the 2004 Parkfield Earthquake and the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment		|title= Introduction to the Special Issue on the 2004 Parkfield Earthquake and the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 96 |issue= 4B |page= S1—S5		|volume= 96 |issue= 4B |pages= S1–S5
	|doi= 10.1785/0120050831		|doi= 10.1785/0120050831
	|url= http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/content/96/4B/S1.full.pdf		|url= http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/content/96/4B/S1.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 2006BuSSA..96S...1H }}.		|bibcode = 2006BuSSA..96S...1H
	*{{citation
	|last1= Hough |first1= Susan Elizabeth
	|authorlink= Susan Hough
	|year= 2007
	|title= Richter's Scale: Measure of an Earthquake, Measure of a Man
	|publisher= Princeton University Press
	|isbn= 978-0-691-12807-8
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|ref=CITEREFHough2010
	|last1= Hough |first1= Susan Elizabeth		|last1= Hayakawa |first1= Masashi
			|year= 2015
	|date= Jan./Feb. 2010
			|title= Fundamentals of earthquake prediction
			|publisher= John Wiley & Sons
			|location= Singapore
			|isbn= 978-1-118-77037-5
			|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-IEZCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Helman
			|first1=Daniel
			|title=Seismic electric signals (SES) and earthquakes: A review of an updated VAN method and competing hypotheses for SES generation and earthquake triggering
			|journal=Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
			|date=2020 |volume=302 |issue=1 |page=106484
			|doi=10.1016/j.pepi.2020.106484
			|bibcode=2020PEPI..30206484H
			|s2cid=216467109
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Heraud
			|first1=J. A.
			|last2=Centa
			|first2=V. A.
			|last3=Bleier
			|first3=T.
			|date=2015-12-01
			|title=Electromagnetic Precursors Leading to Triangulation of Future Earthquakes and Imaging of the Subduction Zone
			|journal=AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts
			|volume=32
			|pages=NH32B–03
			|bibcode=2015AGUFMNH32B..03H
			}}.
			* {{citation
			|last1= Hough |first1= Susan E.
			|date= Jan–Feb 2010
	|title= A seismological retrospective of the Brady-Spence prediction		|title= A seismological retrospective of the Brady-Spence prediction
	|journal= Seismological Research Letters		|journal= Seismological Research Letters
	|volume= 81 |issue= 1 |pages= 113–117		|volume= 81 |issue= 1 |pages= 113–117
	|doi= 10.1785/gssrl.81.1.113		|doi= 10.1785/gssrl.81.1.113
			|bibcode= 2010SeiRL..81..113H
	|url= http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/hough/srl_hough_jan_2010.pdf		|url= http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/hough/srl_hough_jan_2010.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Hough |first1= Susan
			|last1= Hough |first1= Susan E.
	|year= 2010b		|year= 2010b
	|title= Predicting the Unpredictable: The Tumultuous Science of Earthquake Prediction		|title= Predicting the Unpredictable: The Tumultuous Science of Earthquake Prediction
Line 884:		Line 1,286:
	|isbn= 978-0-691-13816-9		|isbn= 978-0-691-13816-9
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{Citation
	|last1= Immè |first1= Giuseppina
	|last2= Morelli |first2= Daniela		|first1= Qinghua |last1= Huang
			|date=2015-01-27
	|year= 2012
			|title=Forecasting the epicenter of a future major earthquake
	|chapter= Radon as Earthquake Precursor
			|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
	|editor-last= D'Amico
			|volume=112 |issue=4 |pages=944–945
	|title= Earthquake Research and Analysis
			|doi=10.1073/pnas.1423684112
	|chapter-url= http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/30707/InTech-Radon_as_earthquake_precursor.pdf
			|issn=0027-8424
	}}.
			|pmc=4313830
	*{{citation
			|pmid=25583499
	|ref=CITEREFICEF2009
			|bibcode = 2015PNAS..112..944H
	|author= International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection
			|doi-access= free
			}}.
			* {{cite report
			|ref={{harvid|ICEF|2009}}
			|author= International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF)
	|date= 2 October 2009		|date= 2 October 2009
	|title= Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization – Executive Summary		|title= Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization – Executive Summary
	|url= http://www.protezionecivile.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf		|url= http://www.protezionecivile.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf
			|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130309054201/http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf|archive-date=2013-03-09
	}}.
			}}
	*{{citation
	|ref=CITEREFICEF2011
			* {{cite journal
	|author= International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection
			|ref={{harvid|ICEF|2011}}
			|author= International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF)
	|date= 30 May 2011		|date= 30 May 2011
	|title= Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization		|title= Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization
Line 908:		Line 1,318:
	|volume= 54 |issue= 4 |pages= 315–391		|volume= 54 |issue= 4 |pages= 315–391
	|doi= 10.4401/ag-5350		|doi= 10.4401/ag-5350
			|s2cid= 129825964
	|url= http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/5350
			|doi-access= free
	}}.
			|hdl= 20.500.11820/6552f865-6e59-47f1-a5ec-b7446bfd1a82
	*{{citation
			|hdl-access= free
	|ref=CITEREFJackson1996a
			}}
			* {{citation
	|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.		|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.
	|date= April 1996a		|date= April 1996a
	|title= Hypothesis testing and earthquake prediction		|title= Hypothesis testing and earthquake prediction
	|journal= Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.		|journal= Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
	|volume= 93 |issue= |pages= 3772–3775		|volume= 93 |issue= 9|pages= 3772–3775
	|doi=		|doi=10.1073/pnas.93.9.3772
			|pmid= 11607663 |pmc= 39435 |bibcode= 1996PNAS...93.3772J
	|url= http://www.pnas.org/content/93/9/3772.full.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|ref=CITEREFJackson1996b
	|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.		|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.
	|date= 27 May 1996b		|date= 27 May 1996b
	|title= Earthquake prediction evaluation standards applied to the VAN method		|title= Earthquake prediction evaluation standards applied to the VAN method
	|journal= Geophysical Review Letters		|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
	|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1363–1366		|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1363–1366
			|doi=10.1029/96gl01439
			|bibcode= 1996GeoRL..23.1363J
	}}.		}}.
			* {{cite book|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.
	*{{citation
			|date= 2004
	|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.
			|chapter= Earthquake Prediction and Forecasting
	|year= 2004
			|editor1-first= R. S. J. |editor1-last= Sparks
	|contribution= Earthquake Prediction and Forecasting
			|editor2-first= C. J. |editor2-last= Hawkesworth
	|title= The State of the Planet: Frontiers and Challenges in Geophysics
			|title= The State of the Planet: Frontiers and Challenges in Geophysics
	|journal= Geophysical Monograph 150
			|journal= Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series
	|pages= 335–348
			|series= Geophysical Monograph Series
			|publisher= American Geophysical Union
			|location= Washington DC
			|volume= 150 |pages= 335–348
	|doi= 10.1029/150GM26		|doi= 10.1029/150GM26
	|url= http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v150/150GM26/150GM26.pdf
	|bibcode=2004GMS...150..335J		|bibcode=2004GMS...150..335J
			|isbn= 0-87590-415-7
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.
			|last2= Kagan |first2= Yan Y.
			|date= 24 November 1998
			|title= VAN method lacks validity
			|journal= Eos
			|volume= 79 |issue= 47 |pages=573–579
			|doi= 10.1029/98EO00418
			|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/VAN_98_EOS.pdf |bibcode=1998EOSTr..79..573J
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.		|last1= Jackson |first1= David D.
	|last2= Kagan |first2= Yan Y.		|last2= Kagan |first2= Yan Y.
	|date= September 2006		|date= September 2006
	|title= The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, the 1985 prediction, and characteristic earthquakes: Lessons for the future		|title= The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, the 1985 prediction, and characteristic earthquakes: Lessons for the future
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 96 |issue= 4B |page= S397—S409		|volume= 96 |issue= 4B |page= S397–S409
	|doi= 10.1785/0120050821		|doi= 10.1785/0120050821
	|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/BSSA_S397.pdf		|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/BSSA_S397.pdf
	|bibcode = 2006BuSSA..96S.397J }}.		|bibcode = 2006BuSSA..96S.397J
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Johnston |first1= M.J.S.
			|year= 2002
			|chapter= Electromagnetic Fields Generated by Earthquakes
			|title= International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology
			|volume= 81A
			|pages= 621–635
			|editor1-last= Lee |editor1-first= William H.K.
			|editor2-last= Kanamori |editor2-first= Hiroo
			|editor3-last= Jennings |editor3-first= Paul C.
			|editor4-last= Kisslinger |editor4-first= Carl
			|isbn= 0-12-440652-1
			}}
			*{{Citation
			|first1= M. J. S. |last1= Johnston
			|first2= Y. |last2= Sasai
			|first3= G. D. |last3= Egbert
			|first4= R. J. |last4= Mueller
			|date= September 2006
			|title= Seismomagnetic Effects from the Long-Awaited 28 September 2004 '''M''' 6.0 Parkf1eld Earthquake
			|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
			|volume= 96 |issue= 4B |pages=S206–S220
			|doi= 10.1785/0120050810
			|url= https://www.quakefinder.com/research/EQTdata/S206.pdf
			|bibcode= 2006BuSSA..96S.206J
			|s2cid= 129965769
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|editor1-last= Jolliffe |editor1-first= Ian T.		|editor1-last= Jolliffe |editor1-first= Ian T.
	|editor2-last= Stephenson |editor2-first= David B.		|editor2-last= Stephenson |editor2-first= David B.
	|year= 2003		|year= 2003
	|title= Forecast Verification: A Practitioner’s Guide in Atmospheric Science		|title= Forecast Verification: A Practitioner's Guide in Atmospheric Science
	|edition= 1st		|edition= 1st
	|publisher= John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.		|publisher= John Wiley & Sons
	|isbn= 0-471-49759-2		|isbn= 0-471-49759-2
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|first1= Lucille M. |last1= Jones		|first1= Lucille M. |last1= Jones
	|date= December 1985		|date= December 1985
Line 964:		Line 1,427:
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 75 |issue= 6 |pages= 1669–1679		|volume= 75 |issue= 6 |pages= 1669–1679
			|bibcode= 1985BuSSA..75.1667J
	}}.
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Jordan |first1= Thomas H.		|last1= Jordan |first1= Thomas H.
	|last2= Jones |first2= Lucile M.		|last2= Jones |first2= Lucile M.
	|year= 2010		|date= July–August 2010
	|date= July/August 2010
	|title= Operational Earthquake Forecasting: Some thoughts on why and how		|title= Operational Earthquake Forecasting: Some thoughts on why and how
	|journal= Seismological Research Letters		|journal= Seismological Research Letters
	|volume= 81 |issue= 4 |pages= 571–574		|volume= 81 |issue= 4 |pages= 571–574
	|doi= 10.1785/gssrl.81.4.571		|doi= 10.1785/gssrl.81.4.571
			|bibcode= 2010SeiRL..81..571J
	|url= http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf
			|url= https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			*{{Citation
	|last1= Jordan |first1= Thomas H.
	|last2= Jones |first2= Lucile M.		|last1= Kagan |first1= Y. Y.
			|date= May 27, 1996
	|year= 2011
			|title= VAN earthquake predictions{{snd}} an attempt at statistical evaluation
	|date= March/April 2011
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
	|title= Reply to ‘A second Opinion on "Operational Earthquake forecasting: some Thoughts on Why and How," by Thomas H. Jordan and lucile M. Jones,’ by Stuart Crampin
			|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1315–1318
	|journal= Seismological Research Letters
			|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/yykvan.pdf
	|volume= 82 |issue= 2 |pages= 231–232
	|doi= 10.1785/gssrl.82.2.231		|doi=10.1029/95gl03417
			|bibcode=1996GeoRL..23.1315K
	|url= http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/scrampin/opinion/Jordan_Jones(2011).pdf
	}}.		}}
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kafka |first1= Alan L.
	|last2= Ebel |first2= John E.		|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.
	|date= August 2011		|date= 15 March 1997
	|title= Proximity to Past Earthquakes as a Least-Astonishing Hypothesis for Forecasting Locations of Future Earthquakes
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 101 |issue= 4 |pages= 1618–1629
	|doi= 10.1785/0120090164
	|url= https://www2.bc.edu/alan-kafka/cs/Kafka_Ebel_BSSA_2011.pdf
	|bibcode = 2011BuSSA.101.1618K
	}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Kagan |first1= Y. Y.
	|year= 1997a
	|date= 15 March 1997a
	|title= Statistical aspects of Parkfield earthquake sequence and Parkfield prediction experiment		|title= Statistical aspects of Parkfield earthquake sequence and Parkfield prediction experiment
	|journal= Tectonophysics		|journal= Tectonophysics
	|volume= 270 |issue= 3—4 |pages= 207–219		|volume= 270 |issue= 3–4 |pages= 207–219
	|doi= 10.1016/S0040-1951(96)00210-7		|doi= 10.1016/S0040-1951(96)00210-7
	|url= ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/parkf.pdf		|url= ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/parkf.pdf
	|bibcode=1997Tectp.270..207K		|bibcode=1997Tectp.270..207K
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.		|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.
	|year= 1997b		|date= December 1997b
	|date= December 1997
	|title= Are earthquakes predictable?		|title= Are earthquakes predictable?
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International		|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 505–525		|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 505–525
	|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..505K		|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..505K
	|doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06595.x		|doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06595.x
			|doi-access= free
	|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/GJI_1997.pdf		|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/GJI_1997.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.		|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.
	|year= 1999		|date= August 1999
	|title= Is Earthquake Seismology a Hard, Quantitative Science?		|title= Is Earthquake Seismology a Hard, Quantitative Science?
	|journal= Pure and Applied Geophysics		|journal= Pure and Applied Geophysics
	|volume= 155 |issue= 2—4 |pages= 233–258		|volume= 155 |issue= 2–4 |pages= 233–258
	|doi= 10.1007/s000240050264		|doi= 10.1007/s000240050264
	|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/hard.pdf		|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/hard.pdf
	|bibcode = 1999PApGe.155..233K		|bibcode = 1999PApGe.155..233K
			|s2cid= 6619331
	}}.
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.		|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.
	|last2= Jackson |first2= David d.		|last2= Jackson |first2= David D.
	|date= 10 December 1991		|date= 10 December 1991
	|title= Seismic Gap Hypothesis: Ten Years After.		|title= Seismic Gap Hypothesis: Ten Years After
	|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research		|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research
	|volume= 96 |issue= B13 |pages= 21,419–21,431		|volume= 96 |issue= B13 |pages= 21, 419–21, 431
	|doi=		|doi=10.1029/91jb02210
	|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/JGR_1991_after.pdf		|url= http://moho.ess.ucla.edu/~kagan/JGR_1991_after.pdf
			|bibcode= 1991JGR....9621419K
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.		|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.
	|last2= Jackson |first2= David D.		|last2= Jackson |first2= David D.
Line 1,047:		Line 1,507:
	|journal= Geophysical Research Letters		|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
	|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1433–1436		|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1433–1436
	|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1433K |doi = 10.1029/95GL03786		|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1433K
			|doi = 10.1029/95GL03786
	|url= ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/kjvan.pdf		|url= ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/kjvan.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.		|last1= Kagan |first1= Yan Y.
	|last2= Jackson |first2= David d.		|last2= Jackson |first2= David d.
	|last3= Geller |first3= Robert J.		|last3= Geller |first3= Robert J.
	|date= November 2012		|date= November–December 2012
	|title= Characteristic earthquake model, 1884 – 2011, R.I.P.		|title= Characteristic earthquake model, 1884 – 2011, R.I.P
	|journal= Seismologocial Research Letters		|journal= Seismological Research Letters
	|volume= |issue= |pages=		|volume= 83 |issue= 6 |pages= 951–953
	|doi=		|doi= 10.1785/0220120107
	|url= http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4836.pdf		|arxiv= 1207.4836
			|bibcode= 2012arXiv1207.4836K
			|s2cid= 88513151
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|first1= Yan Y. |last1= Kagan
			|first2= Leon |last2= Knopoff
			|s2cid= 12946111
			|date= 19 June 1987
			|title= Statistical Short-Term Earthquake Prediction
			|journal= Science
			|volume= 236 |issue= 4808 |pages= 1563–1567
			|doi=10.1126/science.236.4808.1563
			|pmid= 17835741
			|bibcode= 1987Sci...236.1563K
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kanamori |first1= Hiroo
			|last1= Kanamori |first1= Hiroo
	|year= 2003		|year= 2003
	|title= Earthquake Prediction: An Overview		|title= Earthquake Prediction: An Overview
	|journal= International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology		|journal= International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology
	|volume= 616 |pages= 1205–1216		|volume= 616 |pages= 1205–1216
	|isbn= 0-12-440658-0		|isbn= 0-12-440658-0
			|doi=10.1016/s0074-6142(03)80186-9
	}}.
			|series= International Geophysics
	*{{citation
			|bibcode= 2003InGeo..81.1205K
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kanamori |first1= Hiroo		|last1= Kanamori |first1= Hiroo
	|last2= Stewart |first2= Gordon S.		|last2= Stewart |first2= Gordon S.
Line 1,077:		Line 1,559:
	|volume= 83 |issue= B7 |pages= 3427–3434		|volume= 83 |issue= B7 |pages= 3427–3434
	|doi= 10.1029/JB083iB07p03427		|doi= 10.1029/JB083iB07p03427
	|url= http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf |bibcode=1978JGR....83.3427K		|url= http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf
			|bibcode=1978JGR....83.3427K
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			*{{Citation
			|first1= K. N. |last1= Kappler
			|first2= H. Frank |last2= Morrison
			|first3= G. D. |last3= Egbert
			|date= April 2010
			|title= Long((en))term monitoring of ULF electromagnetic fields at Parkfield, California
			|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research
			|volume= 115 |issue= B4 |pages= B04406
			|doi= 10.1029/2009JB006421
			|url= https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/24054/EgbertGD.COAS.LongtermMonitoringULF.pdf |bibcode=2010JGRB..115.4406K
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.		|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.
	|date= 28 April 1978		|date= 28 April 1978
	|title= Earthquakes: Prediction Proving Elusive		|title= Earthquakes: Prediction Proving Elusive
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 200 |pages= 419–421		|volume= 200 |issue= 4340 |pages= 419–421
	|bibcode = 1978Sci...200..419K |doi = 10.1126/science.200.4340.419		|bibcode = 1978Sci...200..419K
			|doi = 10.1126/science.200.4340.419
			|pmid= 17757294
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/200/4340/419.full.pdf
			}}.
	}}.{{Harvnb|Kafka|Ebel|2011}}
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.		|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.
	|date= 2 November 1979		|date= 2 November 1979
	|title= Prospects for Earthquake Prediction Wane		|title= Prospects for Earthquake Prediction Wane
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 206 |pages= 542–544		|volume= 206 |issue= 4418 |pages= 542–544
	|doi = 10.1126/science.206.4418.542		|doi = 10.1126/science.206.4418.542
	|bibcode = 1979Sci...206..542K		|bibcode = 1979Sci...206..542K
			|pmid=17759414
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/206/4418/542.full.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.		|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.
	|date= 20 February 1981		|date= 20 February 1981
	|title= Prediction of huge Peruvian quakes quashed		|title= Prediction of huge Peruvian quakes quashed
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 211 |pages= 808–809		|volume= 211 |issue= 4484 |pages= 808–809
			|bibcode = 1981Sci...211..808K
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/211/4484/808.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1981Sci...211..808K |doi = 10.1126/science.211.4484.808		|doi = 10.1126/science.211.4484.808
			|pmid= 17740381
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.		|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.
	|year= 1981c		|date= 18 December 1981c
			|title= Palmdale Bulge Doubts Now Taken Seriously
	|date= 18 December 1981
	|title= Palmdale Bulge Doubts Now Taken Seriously
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 214 |pages= 1331–33		|volume= 214 |issue= 4527 |pages= 1331–33
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/214/4527/1331.full.pdf		|doi=10.1126/science.214.4527.1331
			|bibcode= 1981Sci...214.1331K
			|pmid=17812251
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.		|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.
	|date= 6 January 1984		|date= 6 January 1984
	|title= Stalking the Next Parkfield Earthquake		|title= Stalking the Next Parkfield Earthquake
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 223 |pages= 36–38		|volume= 223 |issue= 4631 |pages= 36–38
			|bibcode = 1984Sci...223...36K
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/223/4631/36.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1984Sci...223...36K |doi = 10.1126/science.223.4631.36 }}.		|doi = 10.1126/science.223.4631.36
			|pmid= 17752978
	*{{citation
			}}.<br />{{cite journal|title= How to Catch an Earthquake |journal= Science |year= 1984 |volume= 223 |issue= 4631 |page= 38 |doi = 10.1126/science.223.4631.38 |pmid= 17752979 |ref={{harvid|Kerr 1984, "How to Catch an Earthquake"}}|last1= Kerr |first1= R. A. }}
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.		|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.
	|date= 27 October 1989		|date= 27 October 1989
	|title= Reading the Future in Loma Prieta		|title= Reading the Future in Loma Prieta
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 246 |pages= 436–439		|volume= 246 |issue= 4929 |pages= 436–439
	|doi= 10.1126/science.246.4929.436		|doi= 10.1126/science.246.4929.436
			|pmid= 17788681
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/246/4929/436.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1989Sci...246..436K }}.		|bibcode = 1989Sci...246..436K
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.		|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.
			|s2cid= 32455927
	|date= 8 October 2004		|date= 8 October 2004
	|title= Parkfield Keeps Secrets After A Long-Awaited Quake		|title= Parkfield Keeps Secrets After A Long-Awaited Quake
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 306 |pages= 206–7		|volume= 306 |issue= 5694 |pages= 206–7
			|doi=10.1126/science.306.5694.206
	|doi=
			|pmid= 15472043
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5694/206.full.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.		|last1= Kerr |first1= Richard A.
			|s2cid= 206585897
	|date= 17 April 2009		|date= 17 April 2009
	|title= After the Quake, in Search of the Science—or Even a Good Prediction		|title= After the Quake, in Search of the Science{{snd}}or Even a Good Prediction
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 324 |page= 322		|volume= 324 |issue= 5925
	|doi = 10.1126/science.324.5925.322		|page= 322
			|doi = 10.1126/science.324.5925.322
			|pmid= 19372400
	|bibcode = 2009Sci...324..322K		|bibcode = 2009Sci...324..322K
			}}.
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5925/322.full.pdf
	}}.
			* {{Cite journal|last1=Kossobokov|first1=V.G.|last2=Romashkova|first2=L.L.|last3=Keilis-Borok|first3=V. I.|last4=Healy|first4=J.H.|year=1999|title=Testing earthquake prediction algorithms: Statistically significant advance prediction of the largest earthquakes in the Circum-Pacific, 1992–1997|journal=Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors|volume=111|issue=3–4|pages=187–196|doi=10.1016/S0031-9201(98)00159-9|bibcode=1999PEPI..111..187K|url=https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70021777}}
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last= Kington |first= Tom
			|editor1-last= Lighthill |editor1-first= James
	|date= October 23, 2012
	|title= Italian scientist convicted over L'Aquila earthquake condemns 'medieval' court
	|work= The Guardian
	|url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/italian-scientist-earthquake-condemns-court?newsfeed=true
	|accessdate= October 23, 2012
	}}
	*{{citation
	|editor1-last= Lighthill |editor1-first= Sir James
	|title= A Critical Review of VAN – Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electrical Signals		|title= A Critical Review of VAN – Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electrical Signals
	|year= 1996		|year= 1996
	|isbn= 978-981-02-2670-1		|isbn= 978-981-02-2670-1
	|publisher= World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd		|publisher= World Scientific Publishing
	|location= London		|location= London
	|url= http://www.worldscibooks.com/engineering/3006.html
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Lighton |first1= John R.B.		|last1= Lighton |first1= John R.B.
	|last2= Duncan |first2= Frances D.		|last2= Duncan |first2= Frances D.
Line 1,175:		Line 1,681:
	|title= Shaken, not stirred: a serendipitous study of ants and earthquakes		|title= Shaken, not stirred: a serendipitous study of ants and earthquakes
	|journal= Journal of Experimental Biology		|journal= Journal of Experimental Biology
	|volume= 208 |issue= |pages= 3103–3107		|volume= 208 |issue= 16|pages= 3103–3107
	|doi= 10.1242/jeb.01735		|doi= 10.1242/jeb.01735
			|pmid= 16081608
	|url= http://jeb.biologists.org/content/208/16/3103.full.pdf
			|s2cid= 2487051
	}}.
			|doi-access= free
	*{{citation
			}}.
			* {{cite report
	|last1= Lindberg |first1= Robert G.		|last1= Lindberg |first1= Robert G.
	|last2= Skiles |first2= Durward		|last2= Skiles |first2= Durward
	|last3= Hayden |first3= Page		|last3= Hayden |first3= Page
	|year= 1981		|year= 1981
	|title= Can animals predict earthqaukes? A search for correlations between changes in activity patterns of two fossorial rodents and subsequent seismic events		|title= Can animals predict earthquakes? A search for correlations between changes in activity patterns of two fossorial rodents and subsequent seismic events
	|journal= U.S. Geological Survey		|publisher= United States Geological Survey
	|volume= Open-File Report 81-385		|id= Open-File Report 81-385
	|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/0385/report.pdf		|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/0385/report.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|first1= A.G. |last1= Lindh		|first1= A.G. |last1= Lindh
	|first2= D.A. |last2= Lockner		|first2= D.A. |last2= Lockner
Line 1,199:		Line 1,709:
	|url= http://usgsprojects.org/lee/Lindh_Lockner_Lee_BSSA1978.pdf		|url= http://usgsprojects.org/lee/Lindh_Lockner_Lee_BSSA1978.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{Citation
	|last= Lomnitz |first= Cinna
			|last1=Lisi |first1=M.
	|year= 1983
			|last2=Filizzola|first2=C.
	|chapter= Oaxaca, Mexico, predictions
			|last3=Genzano|first3=N.
	|chapter-url= http://65.182.2.242/docum/crid/Septiembre-Octubre2005/CD-1/pdf/eng/doc15923/doc15923-contenido.pdf
			|last4=Grimaldi|first4=C. S. L.
	|title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories
			|last5=Lacava|first5=T.
	|location= Geneva, 12—15 October 1982
			|last6=Marchese|first6=F.
	|publisher= UNDPRO
			|last7=Mazzeo|first7=G.
	|pages= 29–34
			|last8=Pergola|first8=N.
	}}.
			|last9=Tramutoli|first9=V.
	*{{citation
			|date=2010-02-26
			|title=A study on the Abruzzo 6 April 2009 earthquake by applying the RST approach to 15 years of AVHRR TIR observations
			|url=https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/395/2010/
			|journal=Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
			|volume=10|issue=2|pages=395–406
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-10-395-2010
			|bibcode=2010NHESS..10..395L
			|issn=1561-8633
			|doi-access=free
			|hdl=11563/4344
			|hdl-access=free
			}}
			* {{citation
	|last1= Lomnitz |first1= Cinna		|last1= Lomnitz |first1= Cinna
	|year= 1994		|year= 1994
	|title= Fundamentals of earthquake prediction		|title= Fundamentals of earthquake prediction
	|publisher= John Wiley &amp; Sons		|publisher= John Wiley & Sons
	|location= New York		|location= New York
	|oclc= 647404423		|oclc= 647404423
	|isbn= 0-471-57419-8		|isbn= 0-471-57419-8
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Lomnitz |first1= Cinna		|last1= Lomnitz |first1= Cinna
	|last2= Nava |first2= F. Alejandro		|last2= Nava |first2= F. Alejandro
Line 1,225:		Line 1,750:
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 73 |issue= 6A |pages= 1815–1824		|volume= 73 |issue= 6A |pages= 1815–1824
	|doi=
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{Citation
			|first1= Dale F. |last1= Lott
			|first2= Benjamin L. |last2= Hart
			|first3= Kenneth L. |last3= Verosub
			|first4= Mary W. |last4= Howell
			|date= September 1979
			|title= Is Unusual Animal Behavior Observed Before Earthquakes? Yes and No
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 6 |issue= 9 |pages= 685–687
			|doi= 10.1029/GL006i009p00685
			|bibcode= 1979GeoRL...6..685L
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|first1= Dale F. |last1= Lott
			|first2= Benjamin L. |last2= Hart
			|first3= Mary W. |last3= Howell
			|date= December 1981
			|title= Retrospective Studies of Unusual Animal Behavior as an Earthquake Predictor
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 8 |issue= 12 |pages= 1203–1206
			|doi= 10.1029/GL008i012p01203
			|bibcode= 1981GeoRL...8.1203L
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Ludwin |first1= Ruth		|last1= Ludwin |first1= Ruth
	|date= May 2001		|date= May 2001
Line 1,235:		Line 1,785:
	|url= http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_washington_geology_2001_v28_no3.pdf		|url= http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_washington_geology_2001_v28_no3.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Luen |first1= Brad
			|last1= Luen |first1= Brad
	|last2= Stark |first2= Philip B.		|last2= Stark |first2= Philip B.
	|year= 2008		|year= 2008
	|contribution= Testing earthquake predictions		|contribution= Testing earthquake predictions
	|title= Institute of Mathematical Statistics collections: Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of David A. Freedman		|title= Institute of Mathematical Statistics collections: Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of David A. Freedman
	|volume= 2 |pages= 302–315		|volume= 2 |pages= 302–315
	|isbn= 978-0-94060074-4		|isbn= 978-0-94060074-4
	|url= http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3032.pdf		|arxiv= 0805.3032
			|bibcode = 2008pseh.book..302L
	}}.
			|doi=10.1214/193940307000000509
	*{{citation
			|s2cid= 12016809
	|last1= Mabey |first1= Matthew A.
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Luginbuhl|first1=Molly
			|last2=Rundle|first2=John B.
			|last3=Hawkins|first3=Angela
			|last4=Turcotte|first4=Donald L.
			|year=2018
			|title=Nowcasting Earthquakes: A Comparison of Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma and at the Geysers, California
			|journal=Pure and Applied Geophysics
			|volume=175|issue=1|pages=49–65
			|doi=10.1007/s00024-017-1678-8
			|bibcode=2018PApGe.175...49L
			|s2cid=134725994
			|issn=1420-9136
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Luginbuhl|first1=Molly
			|last2=Rundle|first2=John B.
			|last3=Turcotte|first3=Donald L.
			|date=2018a
			|title=Natural Time and Nowcasting Earthquakes: Are Large Global Earthquakes Temporally Clustered?
			|journal=Pure and Applied Geophysics
			|volume=175|issue=2|pages=661–670
			|doi=10.1007/s00024-018-1778-0
			|bibcode=2018PApGe.175..661L
			|s2cid=186239922
			|issn=1420-9136
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Luginbuhl|first1=Molly
			|last2=Rundle|first2=John B.
			|last3=Turcotte|first3=Donald L.
			|date=2018b
			|title=Natural time and nowcasting induced seismicity at the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands
			|url=https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/215/2/753/5062794
			|journal=Geophysical Journal International
			|volume=215|issue=2|pages=753–759
			|doi=10.1093/gji/ggy315
			|bibcode=2018GeoJI.215..753L
			|issn=0956-540X
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Luginbuhl|first1=Molly
			|last2=Rundle|first2=John B.
			|last3=Turcotte|first3=Donald L.
			|date=2019-01-14
			|title=Statistical physics models for aftershocks and induced seismicity
			|journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
			|volume=377|issue=2136|page=20170397
			|doi=10.1098/rsta.2017.0397
			|pmc=6282405
			|pmid=30478209
			|bibcode=2019RSPTA.37770397L
			}}
			* {{citation
			|last1= Mabey |first1= Matthew A.
	|date= May 2001		|date= May 2001
	|title= The Charlatan Game		|title= The Charlatan Game
Line 1,253:		Line 1,866:
	|url= http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_washington_geology_2001_v28_no3.pdf		|url= http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_washington_geology_2001_v28_no3.pdf
	}}. Also at .		}}. Also at .
	*{{citation
			* {{cite web
			|last1= Main |first1= Ian
			|date= 25 February 1999
			|title= Is the reliable prediction of individual earthquakes a realistic scientific goal?
			|work= Nature
			|url= http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/earthquake/
			|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20010508213058/http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/earthquake/|archive-date=2001-05-08
			}}
			*{{Citation
			|first1= Ian G. |last1= Main
			|first2= Andrew F. |last2= Bell
			|first3= Philip G. |last3= Meredith
			|first4= Sebastian |last4= Geiger
			|first5= Sarah |last5= Touati
			|date= August 2012
			|title= The dilatancy–diffusion hypothesis and earthquake predictability
			|journal= Geological Society of London, Special Publications
			|volume= 367
			|issue= 1
			|pages= 215–230
			|doi= 10.1144/SP367.15
			|url= http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/367/1/215.abstract
			|bibcode= 2012GSLSP.367..215M|hdl= 20.500.11820/9d1fbd67-7faa-4adc-8c6f-d742fea1524c
			|s2cid= 73524237
			|hdl-access= free
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1=Martucci|first1=Matteo
			|last2=Sparvoli|first2=Roberta
			|last3=Bartocci|first3=Simona
			|last4=Battiston|first4=Roberto
			|last5=Burger|first5=William Jerome
			|last6=Campana|first6=Donatella
			|last7=Carfora|first7=Luca
			|last8=Castellini|first8=Guido
			|last9=Conti|first9=Livio
			|last10=Contin|first10=Andrea
			|last11=De Donato|first11=Cinzia
			|date=2021
			|title=Trapped Proton Fluxes Estimation Inside the South Atlantic Anomaly Using the NASA AE9/AP9/SPM Radiation Models along the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite Orbit
			|journal=Applied Sciences
			|volume=11|issue=8|page=3465
			|doi=10.3390/app11083465
			|doi-access=free
			|hdl=11585/870881
			|hdl-access=free
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Mason |first1= Ian
			|year= 2003
			|title= Binary Events
			}}. Chap. 3 in {{Harvnb|Jolliffe|Stephenson|2003}}.
			* {{citation
			|last1= Matthews |first1= Robert A. J.
			|date= December 1997
			|title= Decision-theoretic limits on earthquake prediction
			|journal= Geophysical Journal International
			|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 526–529
			|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..526M |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06596.x
			|doi-access= free}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= McCann |first1= W. R.		|last1= McCann |first1= W. R.
	|last2= Nishenko |first2= S. P.		|last2= Nishenko |first2= S. P.
Line 1,261:		Line 1,940:
	|title= Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: Seismic potential for major boundaries		|title= Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: Seismic potential for major boundaries
	|journal= Pure and Applied Geophysics		|journal= Pure and Applied Geophysics
	|volume= 117 |issue= |pages= 1082–1147		|volume= 117 |issue= 6|pages= 1082–1147
	|doi= 10.1007/BF00876211		|doi= 10.1007/BF00876211
			|bibcode = 1979PApGe.117.1082M
	|url=
			|s2cid= 129377355
	|bibcode = 1979PApGe.117.1082M }}.
			}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|first1= T.V. |last1= McEvilly		|first1= T.V. |last1= McEvilly
	|first2= L.R. |last2= Johnson		|first2= L.R. |last2= Johnson
Line 1,272:		Line 1,953:
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 64 |issue= 2 |pages= 343–353		|volume= 64 |issue= 2 |pages= 343–353
			|doi= 10.1785/BSSA0640020343
	}}.
			|bibcode= 1974BuSSA..64..343M
	*{{citation
			|s2cid= 130963434
	|ref= CITEREFMcIntyre2009
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= McIntyre |first1= Jamie		|last1= McIntyre |first1= Jamie
	|year= 2009		|date= April–May 2009
	|date= April/May 2009
	|title= When Outrage Trumps Science: Italian quake prediction produces tabloid tremors		|title= When Outrage Trumps Science: Italian quake prediction produces tabloid tremors
	|journal= American Journalism Review		|journal= American Journalism Review
	|url= http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751		|url= http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|ref= CITEREFMcNally1979
	|last1= McNally |first1= Karen		|last1= McNally |first1= Karen
			|author-link1=Karen Cook McNally
	|date= November–December 1979		|date= November–December 1979
	|title= Trapping an Earthquake		|title= Trapping an Earthquake
	|magazine= Engineering &amp; Science		|magazine= Engineering & Science
	|pages= 7–12		|pages= 7–12
	|url= http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3252/1/trapping.pdf		|url= http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3252/1/trapping.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Main |first1= Ian &#91;moderator&#93;
	|date= February 1999
	|title= Is the reliable prediction of individual earthquakes a realistic scientific goal?
	|publisher= Nature
	|url= http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/earthquake/
	}}.
	*{{Citation
	|last1= Mason |first1= Ian
	|year= 2003
	|chapter= Binary Events
	}} Chap. 3 in {{Harvnb|Jolliffe|Stephenson|2003}}.
	*{{citation		* {{citation
	|last1= Matthews |first1= Robert A. J.
	|date= December 1997
	|title= Decision-theoretic limits on earthquake prediction
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 526–529
	|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..526M |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06596.x }}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Mignan |first1= Arnaud		|last1= Mignan |first1= Arnaud
	|date= June 2011		|date= June 2011
	|title= Retrospective on the Accelerating Seismic Release (ASR) hypothesis: controversy and new horizons		|title= Retrospective on the Accelerating Seismic Release (ASR) hypothesis: controversy and new horizons
	|journal= Tectonophysics		|journal= Tectonophysics
	|volume= 505 |issue= 1—4 |pages= 1–16		|volume= 505 |issue= 1–4 |pages= 1–16
	|doi= 10.1016/j.tecto.2011.03.010		|doi= 10.1016/j.tecto.2011.03.010
			|bibcode= 2011Tectp.505....1M
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
			|last1= Mignan |first1= Arnaud
			|date= 14 February 2013
			|title= The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis
			|journal= Scientific Reports
			|volume= 4 |page= 4099
			|doi = 10.1038/srep04099
			|pmid= 24526224
			|pmc= 3924212
			}}.
			* {{cite journal|last1=Mignan|first1=Arnaud|last2=Broccardo|first2=Marco|date=2019-10-02|title=Neural Network Applications in Earthquake Prediction (1994-2019): Meta-Analytic Insight on their Limitations|doi=10.1785/0220200021|arxiv=1910.01178|s2cid=203642017}}
			* {{cite report
			|last1= Mileti|first1= Dennis
			|last2= Sorensen|first2= John
			|title= Communication of Emergency Public Warnings
			|date= August 1990
			|url= http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/6137387
			|access-date= September 20, 2016
			|via=OSTI.GOV
			|doi= 10.2172/6137387
			|doi-access= free
			}}
			* {{citation
	|last1= Miller |first1= Sunlen		|last1= Miller |first1= Sunlen
	|last2= Patrick |first2= Maggy		|last2= Patrick |first2= Maggy
Line 1,325:		Line 2,016:
	|date= 24 August 2011		|date= 24 August 2011
	|title= Sixth Sense? Zoo Animals Sensed Quake Early		|title= Sixth Sense? Zoo Animals Sensed Quake Early
	|publisher= ABC News		|publisher= ABC News|location=United States
	|url= http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/east-coast-earthquake-animals-zoos-reacted-temblor-began/story?id=14371679:		|url= https://abcnews.go.com/Travel/east-coast-earthquake-animals-zoos-reacted-temblor-began/story?id=14371679:
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Mulargia |first1= Francesco		|last1= Mulargia |first1= Francesco
	|last2= Gasperini |first2= Paolo		|last2= Gasperini |first2= Paolo
	|year= 1992		|year= 1992
	|title= Evaluating the statistical validity beyond chance of ‘VAN’ earthquake precursors		|title= Evaluating the statistical validity beyond chance of 'VAN' earthquake precursors
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International		|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|volume= 111 |issue= |pages= 32–44		|volume= 111 |issue= 1|pages= 32–44
	|bibcode = 1992GeoJI.111...32M |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1992.tb00552.x		|bibcode = 1992GeoJI.111...32M |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1992.tb00552.x
			|doi-access= free
	|url= http://gaspy.df.unibo.it/paolo/ArticoliPaolo/32-Mulargia_Gasperini_1992.pdf		|url= http://gaspy.df.unibo.it/paolo/ArticoliPaolo/32-Mulargia_Gasperini_1992.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			*{{Citation
	|last1= Mulargia |first1= Francesco		|last1= Mulargia |first1= Francesco
	|last2= Gasperini |first2= Paolo		|last2= Gasperini |first2= Paolo
	|date= 27 May 1996		|date= 27 May 1996a
	|title= Precursor candidacy and validation: The VAN case so far		|title= Precursor candidacy and validation: The VAN case so far
	|journal= Geophysical Research Letters		|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
Line 1,347:		Line 2,041:
	|url= http://gaspy.df.unibo.it/paolo/ArticoliPaolo/44-Mulargia_Gasperini_1996.pdf		|url= http://gaspy.df.unibo.it/paolo/ArticoliPaolo/44-Mulargia_Gasperini_1996.pdf
	|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1323M		|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1323M
	|doi = 10.1029/95GL03456		|doi = 10.1029/95GL03456
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation		*{{Citation
	|first1= L. L. |last1= Noson		|last1= Mulargia |first1= Francesco
	|first2= A. |last2= Qamar		|last2= Gasperini |first2= Paolo
			|date= 27 May 1996b
	|first3= G. W. |last3= Thorsen
			|title= VAN: Candidacy and validation with the latest laws of the game
	|year= 1988
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
	|title= Washington State Earthquake Hazards
			|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1327–1330
	|publisher= Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources
			|url= http://gaspy.df.unibo.it/paolo/ArticoliPaolo/45-Mulargia_Gasperini_1996.pdf |doi=10.1029/95gl03455 |bibcode=1996GeoRL..23.1327M
	|series= Information Circular |volume= 85
	|url= http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_ic85_earthquake_hazards_wa.pdf
	}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Nurmi |first1= Pertti
	|date= December 2003
	|title= Recommendations on the verification of local weather forecasts
	|publisher= European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts
	|series= ECMWF Technical Memorandum
	|volume= 430
	|url= http://www.eumetcal.org/resources/ukmeteocal/verificationSAV/www/english/msg/library/TechnicalMemorandum430.pdf
	}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Ohtake |first1= Masakazu
	|last2= Matumoto |first2= Tosimatu
	|last3= Latham |first3= Gary V.
	|year= 1977
	|title= Seismicity gap near Oaxaca, southern Mexico, as a probable precursor to a large earthquake
	|journal= Pure Applied Geophysics
	|volume= 115 |issue= |pages= 375–385
	|doi=
	|url= http://zisin.geophys.tohoku.ac.jp/ohtake/ohtake1-20.pdf
	}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Ohtake |first1= Masakazu
	|last2= Matumoto |first2= Tosimatu
	|last3= Latham |first3= Gary V.
	|year= 1981
	|contribution= Evaluation of the forecast of the 1978, Oaxaca, southern Mexico earthquake based on a precursory seismic quiescence
	|chapter-url= http://www.agu.org/books/me/v004/ME004p0053.pdf
	|title= Earthquake Prediction: An International Review
	|publisher= AGU
	|series= Maurice Ewing Series
	|volume= 4
	|pages= 53–61
	|doi=
	}}.		}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Novikov|first1=Victor A.
			|last2=Okunev|first2=Vladimir I.
			|last3=Klyuchkin|first3=Vadim N.
			|last4=Liu|first4=Jing
			|last5=Ruzhin|first5=Yuri Ya.
			|last6=Shen|first6=Xuhui
			|date=2017-08-01
			|title=Electrical triggering of earthquakes: results of laboratory experiments at spring-block models
			|journal=Earthquake Science
			|volume=30|issue=4|pages=167–172
			|doi=10.1007/s11589-017-0181-8
			|bibcode=2017EaSci..30..167N
			|s2cid=133812017
			|issn=1867-8777
			|doi-access=free
			}}
	*{{Citation		*{{Citation
			|first1= R.B. |last1= Ohshansky
			|first2= R.J. |last2= Geller
			|title= Earthquake Science and Seismic Risk Reduction
			|date= 2003
			|chapter= Earthquake prediction and public policy
			|editor-first1= Francesgo |editor-last1= Mulargia
			|editor-first2= Robert J. |editor-last2= Geller
			|series= NATO Science Series, IV Earth and Environmental Sciences
			|volume= 32 |pages= 284–329
			|publisher= Kluwer
			|isbn= 978-94-010-0041-3
			|doi= 10.1007/978-94-010-0041-3_8
			}}.
			* {{cite report
	|last1= Otis |first1= Leon		|last1= Otis |first1= Leon
	|last2= Kautz |first2= William		|last2= Kautz |first2= William
	|year= 1979		|year= 1979
	|chapter= Biological premonitions of earthquakes: a validation study		|title= Biological premonitions of earthquakes: a validation study <!-- |title= Proceedings of Conference XI: Abnormal Animal Behavior Prior to Earthquakes, II -->
			|publisher= United States Geological Survey
	|title= Proceedings of Conference XI: Abnormal Animal Behavior Prior to Earthquakes, II
			|id= Open-File Report 80-453 |pages= 225–226
	|journal= U.S. Geological Survey
	|volume= Open-File Report 80-453
	|pages= 225–226
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|ref= CITEREFPEP1976
			|last1=Panagopoulos|first1=Dimitris J.
	|author= Panel on Earthquake Prediction of the Committee on Seismology &#91;C.R Allen, chairman&#93;
			|last2=Balmori|first2=Alfonso
			|last3=Chrousos|first3=George P.
			|date=2020-05-15
			|title=On the biophysical mechanism of sensing upcoming earthquakes by animals
			|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338894632
			|journal=Science of the Total Environment
			|volume=717|page=136989
			|doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136989
			|pmid=32070887
			|bibcode=2020ScTEn.71736989P
			|s2cid=211192101
			|issn=0048-9697
			}}
			* {{cite report
			|ref= {{harvid|Panel on Earthquake Prediction|1976}}
			|author= Panel on Earthquake Prediction of the Committee on Seismology
	|date= July 1976		|date= July 1976
	|title= Predicting Earthquakes: A Scientific and Technical Evaluation – with Implications for Society		|title= Predicting Earthquakes: A Scientific and Technical Evaluation – with Implications for Society
	|publisher= National Academy Sciences		|publisher= National Academy Sciences
	|place= Washington, D.C.		|place= Washington, D.C.
	|url= http://books.google.com/books/download/Predicting_earthquakes.pdf?id=w0IrAAAAYAAJ		|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=w0IrAAAAYAAJ
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation		*{{Citation
			|first1 = Gerassimos A. |last1 = Papadopoulos
			|date = 4 May 2010
			|title = Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"
			|journal= Eos |volume= 91 |issue= 18 |page= 162
			|doi =10.1029/2010EO180003 |bibcode=2010EOSTr..91..162P
			|doi-access= free}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Papadopoulos |first1= Gerassimos A.
			|date= 2015
			|chapter= Communicating to the General Public Earthquake Prediction Information: Lessons Learned in Greece, Chap. 19
			|editor1-first= Max |editor1-last= Wyss
			|editor2-first= Silvia |editor2-last= Peppoloni
			|title= Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences
			|pages= 223–242
			|publisher= Elsevier Science
			|isbn= 978-0-12-799935-7
			|chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282598010
			}}.
			* {{Citation
	|first1= S. |last1= Park		|first1= S. |last1= Park
	|date= July 1996		|date= July 1996
Line 1,419:		Line 2,150:
	|volume= 17 |issue= 4 |pages= 493–516		|volume= 17 |issue= 4 |pages= 493–516
	|url= http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf		|url= http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf
	|bibcode = 1996SGeo...17..493P |doi = 10.1007/BF01901642 }}.		|bibcode = 1996SGeo...17..493P |doi = 10.1007/BF01901642
			|s2cid= 55247676
	*{{citation
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|first1= Stephen K. |last1= Park
			|first2= William |last2= Dalrymple
			|first3= Jimmy C. |last3= Larsen
			|date= 2007
			|title= The 2004 Parkfield earthquake: Test of the electromagnetic precursor hypothesis
			|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research
			|volume= 112 |issue= B5|pages=B05302
			|doi= 10.1029/2005JB004196
			|bibcode=2007JGRB..112.5302P
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Pasari|first1=Sumanta
			|date=2019-04-01
			|title=Nowcasting Earthquakes in the Bay of Bengal Region
			|journal=Pure and Applied Geophysics
			|volume=176|issue=4|pages=1417–1432
			|doi=10.1007/s00024-018-2037-0
			|bibcode=2019PApGe.176.1417P
			|s2cid=134896312
			|issn=1420-9136
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Pergola |first1=N.
			|last2=Aliano |first2=C.
			|last3=Coviello |first3=I.
			|last4=Filizzola |first4=C.
			|last5=Genzano |first5=N.
			|last6=Lacava |first6=T.
			|last7=Lisi |first7=M.
			|last8=Mazzeo |first8=G.
			|last9=Tramutoli |first9=V.
			|date=2010-02-11
			|title=Using RST approach and EOS-MODIS radiances for monitoring seismically active regions: a study on the 6 April 2009 Abruzzo earthquake
			|url=https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/239/2010/
			|journal=Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
			|volume=10|issue=2|pages=239–249
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-10-239-2010
			|bibcode=2010NHESS..10..239P
			|issn=1561-8633
			|doi-access=free
			|hdl=11563/2364
			|hdl-access=free
			}}
			*{{Citation
			|first1= V. N. |last1= Pham
			|first2= D. |last2= Boyer
			|first3= G. |last3= Chouliaras
			|first4= J. L. |last4= Le Mouël
			|first5= J. C. |last5= Rossignol
			|first6= G. N. |last6= Stavrakakis
			|date= 15 June 1998
			|title= Characteristics of electromagnetic noise in the Ioannina region (Greece); a possible origin for so called "Seismic Electric Signals" (SES)
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 25 |issue= 12 |pages= 2229–2232
			|doi=10.1029/98gl01593
			|url= http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/ioangrl98.pdf |bibcode=1998GeoRL..25.2229P
			|s2cid= 129231700
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|first1= V. N. |last1= Pham
			|first2= D. |last2= Boyer
			|first3= G. |last3= Chouliaras
			|first4= A. |last4= Savvaidis
			|first5= G. N. |last5= Stavrakakis
			|first6= J. L. |last6= Le Mouël
			|year= 2002
			|title= Sources of anomalous transient electric signals (ATESs) in the ULF band in the Lamia region (central Greece): electrochemical mechanisms for their generation
			|journal= Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
			|volume= 130 |issue= 3–4
			|pages= 209–233
			|doi=10.1016/s0031-9201(02)00008-0
			|bibcode=2002PEPI..130..209P
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|first1= V. N. |last1= Pham
			|first2= D. |last2= Boyer
			|first3= J. L. |last3= Le Mouël
			|first4= G. |last4= Chouliaras
			|first5= G. N. |last5= Stavrakakis
			|year= 1999
			|title= Electromagnetic signals generated in the solid Earth by digital transmission of radio-waves as a plausible source for some so-called 'seismic electric signals'
			|journal= Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
			|volume= 114 |issue= 3–4|pages= 141–163
			|doi=10.1016/s0031-9201(99)00050-3
			|url= http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/pepilamia99.pdf |bibcode=1999PEPI..114..141P
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Politis|first1=D.
			|last2=Potirakis|first2=S. M.
			|last3=Hayakawa|first3=M.
			|date=2020-05-01
			|title=Criticality analysis of 3-year-long VLF subionospheric propagation data possibly related to significant earthquake events in Japan
			|journal=Natural Hazards
			|volume=102|issue=1|pages=47–66
			|doi=10.1007/s11069-020-03910-3
			|bibcode=2020NatHa.102...47P
			|s2cid=214783152
			|issn=1573-0840
			}}
			*{{Citation
			|first1= C. B. |last1= Raleigh
			|first2= G. |last2= Bennett
			|first3= H. |last3= Craig
			|first4= T. |last4= Hanks
			|first5= P. |last5= Molnar
			|first6= A. |last6= Nur
			|first7= J. |last7= Savage
			|first8= C. |last8= Scholz
			|first9= R. |last9= Turner
			|first10= F. |last10= Wu
			|date= May 1977
			|title= Prediction of the Haicheng Earthquake
			|journal= ]
			|volume= 58 |issue= 5 |pages= 236–272
			|doi= 10.1029/EO058i005p00236
			|bibcode = 1977EOSTr..58..236.
			}}. <small>By the Haicheng Earthquake Study Delegation.</small>
			* {{citation
	|last1= Reid |first1= Harry Fielding		|last1= Reid |first1= Harry Fielding
	|year= 1910		|year= 1910
	|title= The Mechanics of the Earthquake.		|title= Volume II. The Mechanics of the Earthquake.
	|work= The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission		|work= The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission
			|url= https://archive.org/details/cu31924004102079
	|volume= Vol. 2
			|location= Washington, D. C. |publisher=Carnegie institution of Washington
	|url= http://archive.org/details/cu31924004102079
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Rhoades |first1= D.A.		|last1= Rhoades |first1= D.A.
	|last2= Evison |first2= F.F.		|last2= Evison |first2= F.F.
Line 1,435:		Line 2,296:
	|journal= Geophysical Research Letters		|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
	|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1371–1373		|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1371–1373
	|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1371R |doi = 10.1029/95GL02792 }}.		|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1371R |doi = 10.1029/95GL02792
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Rikitake |first1= Tsunegi
			|last1= Rikitake |first1= Tsuneji
	|date= 1 May 1979		|date= 1 May 1979
	|title= Classification of earthquake precursors		|title= Classification of earthquake precursors
	|journal= Tectonophysics		|journal= Tectonophysics
	|volume= 54 |issue= 3—4 |pages= 293–309		|volume= 54 |issue= 3–4 |pages= 293–309
	|doi= 10.1016/0040-1951(79)90372-X		|doi= 10.1016/0040-1951(79)90372-X
	|bibcode = 1979Tectp..54..293R		|bibcode = 1979Tectp..54..293R
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Rikitake |first1= Tsunegi
			|last1= Rikitake |first1= Tsuneji
	|year= 1982		|year= 1982
	|title= Earthquake Forecasting and Warning		|title= Earthquake Forecasting and Warning
Line 1,452:		Line 2,316:
	|place= Tokyo		|place= Tokyo
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{cite conference
	|last1= Roberts |first1= J.L.		|last1= Roberts |first1= J.L.
	|year= 1983		|year= 1983
	|chapter= Notes on procedure for conveying earthquake forecasts with special reference to the Peru predictions for 1980-1981		|title= Notes on procedure for conveying earthquake forecasts with special reference to the Peru predictions for 1980–1981
	|chapter-url= http://65.182.2.242/docum/crid/Septiembre-Octubre2005/CD-1/pdf/eng/doc15933/doc15933-contenido.pdf		|url= http://65.182.2.242/docum/crid/Septiembre-Octubre2005/CD-1/pdf/eng/doc15933/doc15933-contenido.pdf
	|title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories		|book-title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories
	|location= Geneva, 12–15 October 1982		|conference= Geneva, 12–15 October 1982
	|publisher= UNDPRO		|publisher= UNDPRO
			}}
	|pages=
	}}.
	*{{citation		* {{citation
	|last1= Roeloffs |first1= Evelyn		|last1= Roeloffs |first1= Evelyn
	|last2= Langbein |first2= John		|last2= Langbein |first2= John
	|date= August 1994		|date= August 1994
	|title= The earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield California		|title= The earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield California
	|journal= Review of Geophysics		|journal= Reviews of Geophysics
	|volume= 32 |issue= |pages= 315–336		|volume= 32 |issue= 3|pages= 315–336
	|doi= 10.1029/94RG01114		|doi= 10.1029/94RG01114
	|bibcode=1994RvGeo..32..315R		|bibcode=1994RvGeo..32..315R
			|url= https://zenodo.org/record/1231353
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Rong |first1= Yufang		|last1= Rong |first1= Yufang
	|last2= Jackson |first2= David D.		|last2= Jackson |first2= David D.
	|last3= Kagan |first3= Yan Y.		|last3= Kagan |first3= Yan Y.
	|year= 2003		|date= October 2003
	|title= Seismic gaps and earthquakes		|title= Seismic gaps and earthquakes
	|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research		|journal= Journal of Geophysical Research
	|volume= 108 |issue= B10 |pages= 1–14		|volume= 108 |issue= B10 |page= 2471
	|doi= 10.1029/2002JB002334		|doi= 10.1029/2002JB002334
	|url= http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9q47h699.pdf |bibcode=2003JGRB..108.2471R		|url= http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9q47h699.pdf |bibcode=2003JGRB..108.2471R
			|s2cid= 14079028
	}}.
			}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Cite journal|last1=Rouet-Leduc|first1=Bertrand|last2=Hulbert|first2=Claudia|last3=Lubbers|first3=Nicholas|last4=Barros|first4=Kipton|last5=Humphreys|first5=Colin|last6=Johnson|first6=Paul A.|date=2017-09-28|title=Machine Learning Predicts Laboratory Earthquakes|arxiv=1702.05774|journal=Geophysical Research Letters|volume=44|issue=18|pages=9276–9282|doi=10.1002/2017GL074677|bibcode=2017GeoRL..44.9276R|s2cid=118842086}}
			* {{citation
			|last1=Rozhnoi|first1=A.
			|last2=Solovieva|first2=M.
			|last3=Molchanov|first3=O.
			|last4=Schwingenschuh|first4=K.
			|last5=Boudjada|first5=M.
			|last6=Biagi|first6=P. F.
			|last7=Maggipinto|first7=T.
			|last8=Castellana|first8=L.
			|last9=Ermini|first9=A.
			|last10=Hayakawa|first10=M.
			|date=2009-10-21
			|title=Anomalies in VLF radio signals prior the Abruzzo earthquake (M=6.3) on 6 April 2009
			|url=https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/1727/2009/
			|journal=Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
			|volume=9|issue=5|pages=1727–1732
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-9-1727-2009
			|bibcode=2009NHESS...9.1727R
			|issn=1561-8633
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			* {{citation
			|last1= Rundle|first1=John B.
			|last2= Holliday|first2=James R.
			|last3= Graves|first3=William R.
			|last4= Turcotte|first4=Donald L.
			|last5= Tiampo|first5=Kristy F.
			|last6= Klein|first6=William
			|s2cid=17100504
			|date= 2012
			|title= Probabilities for large events in driven threshold systems
			|journal= Physical Review E
			|volume= 86|issue=2|page=021106
			|doi= 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.021106
			|pmid=23005722
			|bibcode=2012PhRvE..86b1106R}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Rundle|first1=J. B.
			|last2=Turcotte|first2=D. L.
			|last3=Donnellan|first3=A.
			|last4=Ludwig|first4=L. Grant
			|last5=Luginbuhl|first5=M.
			|last6=Gong|first6=G.
			|year=2016
			|title=Nowcasting earthquakes
			|journal=Earth and Space Science
			|volume=3|issue=11|pages=480–486
			|doi=10.1002/2016EA000185
			|bibcode=2016E&SS....3..480R
			|issn=2333-5084
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Rundle|first1=John B.
			|last2=Luginbuhl|first2=Molly
			|last3=Giguere|first3=Alexis
			|last4=Turcotte|first4=Donald L.
			|date=2018b
			|title=Natural Time, Nowcasting and the Physics of Earthquakes: Estimation of Seismic Risk to Global Megacities
			|journal=Pure and Applied Geophysics
			|volume=175|issue=2|pages=647–660
			|doi=10.1007/s00024-017-1720-x
			|arxiv=1709.10057
			|bibcode=2018PApGe.175..647R
			|s2cid=54169682
			|issn=1420-9136
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Rundle|first1=John B.
			|last2=Giguere|first2=Alexis
			|last3=Turcotte|first3=Donald L.
			|last4=Crutchfield|first4=James P.
			|last5=Donnellan|first5=Andrea
			|date=2019
			|title=Global Seismic Nowcasting With Shannon Information Entropy
			|journal=Earth and Space Science
			|volume=6|issue=1|pages=191–197
			|doi=10.1029/2018EA000464
			|issn=2333-5084
			|pmc=6392127
			|pmid=30854411
			|bibcode=2019E&SS....6..191R
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Rundle|first1=John B.
			|last2=Luginbuhl|first2=Molly
			|last3=Khapikova|first3=Polina
			|last4=Turcotte|first4=Donald L.
			|last5=Donnellan|first5=Andrea
			|last6=McKim|first6=Grayson
			|date=2020-01-01
			|title=Nowcasting Great Global Earthquake and Tsunami Sources
			|journal=Pure and Applied Geophysics
			|volume=177|issue=1|pages=359–368
			|doi=10.1007/s00024-018-2039-y
			|s2cid=133790229
			|issn=1420-9136
			}}
			* {{Citation
	|first1= A. |last1= Saegusa		|first1= A. |last1= Saegusa
	|date= 28 January 1999		|date= 28 January 1999
	|title= China clamps down on inaccurate warnings		|title= China clamps down on inaccurate warnings
	|journal= Nature		|journal= Nature
	|volume= 397 |page= 284		|volume= 397 |issue= 6717
			|page= 284
	|bibcode = 1999Natur.397..284W |doi = 10.1038/16756 }}.
			|bibcode = 1999Natur.397..284W |doi = 10.1038/16756
	*{{citation
			|pmid= 9950418
			|s2cid= 4314191
			|doi-access= free
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|first1= Nicholas V. |last1= Sarlis
			|date= 2013
			|title= On the recent seismic activity in North-Eastern Aegean Sea including the ''M<sub>w</sub>''5.8 earthquake on 8 January 2013
			|journal= Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B
			|volume= 89 |issue= 9|pages= 438–445
			|doi= 10.2183/pjab.89.438
			|pmid= 24213207
			|pmc= 3865358
			|bibcode= 2013PJAB...89..438S
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Sarlis |first1= N.
			|last2= Lazaridou |first2= M.
			|last3= Kapiris |first3= P.
			|last4= Varotsos |first4= P.
			|date= 1 November 1999
			|title= Numerical model of the selectivity effect and the ΔV/L criterion
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 26 |issue= 21 |pages= 3245–3248
			|doi=10.1029/1998GL005265
			|issn=1944-8007
			|bibcode = 1999GeoRL..26.3245S
			|doi-access= free
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1 = Sarlis |first1 = N. V.
			|last2 = Skordas |first2 = E. S.
			|last3 = Christopoulos|first3 = S.-R. G.
			|last4 = Varotsos|first4 = P. A.
			|date = January 2016
			|title = Statistical Significance of Minimum of the Order Parameter Fluctuations of Seismicity Before Major Earthquakes in Japan
			|journal = Pure and Applied Geophysics
			|volume = 173|issue = 1|pages = 165–172
			|doi = 10.1007/s00024-014-0930-8
			|issn = 0033-4553
			|bibcode = 2016PApGe.173..165S
			|s2cid = 129004948
			|url = http://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/items/3c97b773-b7ef-4324-bf41-5207e49a83f9/1
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Sarlis |first1= Nicholas V.
			|date= 2018
			|title= Statistical Significance of Earth's Electric and Magnetic Field Variations Preceding Earthquakes in Greece and Japan Revisited
			|journal= Entropy
			|volume= 20|issue= 8 |page= 561<!-- Article number -->
			|doi=10.3390/e20080561
			|pmid= 33265650
			|pmc= 7513084
			|bibcode=2018Entrp..20..561S
			|doi-access= free
			}}
			*{{Citation
			|last1=Sarlis |first1=Nicholas V.
			|last2=Skordas |first2=Efthimios S.
			|last3=Christopoulos |first3=Stavros-Richard G.
			|last4=Varotsos |first4=Panayiotis A.
			|date=2020
			|title=Natural Time Analysis: The Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve of the Order Parameter Fluctuations Minima Preceding Major Earthquakes
			|journal=Entropy
			|volume=22 |issue=5 |page=583
			|doi=10.3390/e22050583
			|pmid=33286355
			|pmc=7517102
			|issn=1099-4300
			|doi-access=free
			|bibcode=2020Entrp..22..583S
			}}
			* {{citation
	|last1= Schaal |first1= Rand B.		|last1= Schaal |first1= Rand B.
	|date= February 1988		|date= February 1988
Line 1,498:		Line 2,551:
	|url= ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/cg/1988/41_02.pdf		|url= ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/cg/1988/41_02.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Scholz |first1= Christopher
	|date= March 1997
	|title= What ever happened to earthquake prediction?
	|magazine= Geotimes
	|volume= 42 |issue= 3
	|doi=
	}}. Reprinted at .
	*{{citation
	|last1= Scholz |first1= Christopher H.		|last1= Scholz |first1= Christopher H.
	|year= 2002		|year= 2002
	|title= The Mechanics of earthquakes and faulting,		|title= The Mechanics of earthquakes and faulting
	|edition= 2nd		|edition= 2nd
	|publisher= Cambridge Univ. Press		|publisher= Cambridge Univ. Press
	|isbn= 0-521-65223-5		|isbn= 0-521-65223-5
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Scholz |first1= Christopher H.		|last1= Scholz |first1= Christopher H.
	|last2= Sykes |first2= Lynn R.		|last2= Sykes |first2= Lynn R.
Line 1,521:		Line 2,568:
	|title= Earthquake Prediction: A Physical Basis		|title= Earthquake Prediction: A Physical Basis
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 181 |pages= 803–810		|volume= 181 |issue= 4102 |pages= 803–810
	|doi= 10.1126/science.181.4102.803		|doi= 10.1126/science.181.4102.803
			|pmid= 17816227
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/181/4102/803.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1973Sci...181..803S }}.		|bibcode = 1973Sci...181..803S
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Schwartz |first1= David P.		|last1= Schwartz |first1= David P.
	|last2= Coppersmith |first2= Kevin J.		|last2= Coppersmith |first2= Kevin J.
Line 1,533:		Line 2,582:
	|volume= 89 |issue= B7 |pages= 5681–5698		|volume= 89 |issue= B7 |pages= 5681–5698
	|doi= 10.1029/JB089iB07p05681 |bibcode=1984JGR....89.5681S		|doi= 10.1029/JB089iB07p05681 |bibcode=1984JGR....89.5681S
			|doi-access= free}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Shnirman |first1= M.
			|last2= Schreider |first2= S.
			|last3= Dmitrieva |first3= O.
			|year= 1993
			|title= Statistical evaluation of the VAN predictions issued during the period 1987–1989.
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 224 |issue= 1–3 |pages= 211–221
			|url= http://dlx.booksc.org/16100000/libgen.scimag16128000-16128999.zip/browse/10.1016/0040-1951%252893%252990074-t.pdf
			|doi=10.1016/0040-1951(93)90074-t
			|bibcode= 1993Tectp.224..211S
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Seher |first1= T.
	|last2= Main |first2= I. G.
	|year= 2004
	|title= A statistical evaluation of a ‘stress-forecast’ earthquake
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|volume= 157 |issue= |pages= 187–193
	|doi= 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004/02186.x
	|url= http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004GeoJI.157..187S
	}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Shapley |first1= Deborah
	|date= 7 May 1976
	|title= Earthquakes: Los Angeles Prediction Suggests Faults in Federal Policy
	|journal= Science
	|volume= 192 |pages= 535–537
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/192/4239/535.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1976Sci...192..535S |doi = 10.1126/science.192.4239.535 }}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Shen |first1= Xuhui
	|last2= Zhang |first2= Xuemin
	|last3= Wang |first3= Lanwei
	|last4= Chen |first4= Huaran
	|last5= Wu |first5= Yun
	|last6= Yuan |first6= Shigeng
	|last7= Shen |first7= Junfeng
	|last8= Zhao |first8= Shufan
	|coauthors= Qian, Jiadong; Ding, Jianhai
	|date= December 2011
	|title= The earthquake-related disturbances in ionosphere and project of the first China seismo-electromagnetic satellite
	|journal= Earthquake Science
	|volume= 24 |issue= 6|pages= 639–650
	|doi= 10.1007/s11589-011-0824-0
	|bibcode = 2011EaSci..24..639S }}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Sibson |first1= R. H.		|last1= Sibson |first1= R. H.
	|year= 1986		|year= 1986
	|title= Earthquakes and Lineament Infrastructure		|title= Earthquakes and Lineament Infrastructure
	|journal= ]		|journal= ]
	|volume= 317 |issue= |pages= 63–79		|volume= 317 |issue= 1539|pages= 63–79
	|doi= 10.1098/rsta.1986.0025		|doi= 10.1098/rsta.1986.0025
			|bibcode = 1986RSPTA.317...63S
	|url= http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/317/1539/63.full.pdf
			|s2cid= 122934024
	|bibcode = 1986RSPTA.317...63S }}.
			}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Smith |first1= Peter J.
			*{{Citation
	|year= 1975a
			|first1= E. S. |last1= Skordas
	|date= 10 February 1975
			|first2= S.-R. G. |last2= Christopoulos
	|title= Crack theory developed
			|first3= N. V. |last3= Sarlis
	|journal= Nature
			|date= 2 January 2020
	|volume= 253 |issue= |page= 593
			|title= Detrended fluctuation analysis of seismicity and order parameter fluctuations before the M7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake
	}}.
			|journal= Natural Hazards
	*{{citation
			|volume= 100|issue= 2|pages=697–711
	|last1= Smith |first1= Peter J.
			|doi= 10.1007/s11069-019-03834-7
	|date= 22 May 1975
			|bibcode= 2020NatHa.100..697S
	|title= Successful quake prediction made
			|s2cid= 209542427
	|journal= Nature
			|url= https://pure.coventry.ac.uk/ws/files/38079270/Binder4.pdf
	|volume= 255 |issue= |page= 282
			}}.
	|bibcode = 1975Natur.255..282S |doi = 10.1038/255282a0
	}}.
			* {{cite report
	*{{citation
	|last1= Spence |first1= William		|last1= Spence |first1= William
	|last2= Herrmann |first2= Robert B.		|last2= Herrmann |first2= Robert B.
Line 1,600:		Line 2,629:
	|year= 1993		|year= 1993
	|title= Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake		|title= Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake
	|journal= U.S. Geological Survey		|publisher= United States Geological Survey
	|volume= Circular 1083		|id= Circular 1083
	|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1993/1083/report.pdf		|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1993/1083/report.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|ref= CITEREFThe Telegraph, 6 April2009
	|last1= Squires |first1= Nick		|last1= Squires |first1= Nick
	|last2= Rayne |first2= Gordon		|last2= Rayne |first2= Gordon
Line 1,611:		Line 2,640:
	|title= Italian earthquake: expert's warnings were dismissed as scaremongering		|title= Italian earthquake: expert's warnings were dismissed as scaremongering
	|newspaper= The Telegraph		|newspaper= The Telegraph
	|url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5114139/Italian-earthquake-experts-warnings-were-dismissed-as-scaremongering.html		|url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5114139/Italian-earthquake-experts-warnings-were-dismissed-as-scaremongering.html
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Stark |first1= Philip B.		|last1= Stark |first1= Philip B.
	|year= 1997		|year= 1997
	|title= Earthquake prediction: the null hypothesis		|title= Earthquake prediction: the null hypothesis
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International		|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|volume= 131 |issue= |pages= 495–499		|volume= 131 |issue= 3|pages= 495–499
	|doi= 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06593.x		|doi= 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06593.x
	|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..495S		|doi-access= free
			|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..495S
			|citeseerx= 10.1.1.36.7867
			|s2cid= 17343855
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Stavrakakis |first1= George N.
			|last2= Drakopoulos |first2= John
			|date= May 27, 1996
			|title= The VAN method: Contradictory and misleading results since 1981
			|journal= Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1347–1350 |doi=10.1029/95gl03546 |bibcode=1996GeoRL..23.1347S
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Stein |first1= Seth		|last1= Stein |first1= Seth
	|last2= Friedrich |first2= Anke		|last2= Friedrich |first2= Anke
	|last3= Newman |first3= Andrew		|last3= Newman |first3= Andrew
	|year= 2005		|date= July–August 2005
	|date= July/August 2005
	|title= Dependence of possible characteristic earthquakes on spatial sampling: illustration for the Wasatch seismic zone, Utah		|title= Dependence of possible characteristic earthquakes on spatial sampling: illustration for the Wasatch seismic zone, Utah
	|journal= Seismological Research Letters		|journal= Seismological Research Letters
	|volume= 76 |issue= 4 |pages= 432–436		|volume= 76 |issue= 4 |pages= 432–436
	|url= http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/wasatch.pdf		|url= http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/wasatch.pdf |doi=10.1785/gssrl.76.4.432
			|bibcode= 2005SeiRL..76..432S
	}}.
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Stein |first1= Seth		|last1= Stein |first1= Seth
	|last2= Newman |first2= Andrew		|last2= Newman |first2= Andrew
	|year= 2004		|date= March–April 2004
			|title= Characteristic and uncharacteristic earthquakes as possible artifacts: application to the New Madrid and Wabash seismic zones
	|date= March/April 2004
	|title= Characteristic and uncharacteristic earthquakes as possible artifacts: application to the New Madrid and Wabash seismic zones
	|journal= Seismological Research Letters		|journal= Seismological Research Letters
	|volume= 75 |issue= 2 |pages= 173–187		|volume= 75 |issue= 2 |pages= 173–187
	|doi=		|doi=10.1785/gssrl.75.2.173
			|bibcode= 2004SeiRL..75..173S
	|url= http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/chareq.pdf		|url= http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/chareq.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			*{{Citation
	|last1= Stevenson |first1= D. A.
	|last2= Talwani |first2= Pradeep		|last1= Stiros |first1= Stathis C.
			|date= December 1997
	|last3= Amick |first3= D. C.
			|title= Costs and benefits of earthquake prediction studies in Greece
	|date= April 1976
			|journal= Geophysical Journal International
	|title= Recent seismic activity near Lake Jocasse, Oconcee Co., South Carolina: Preliminary Results and a Successful Earthquake Prediction
			|volume= 131 |issue= 3|pages= 478–484
	|journal= ]
			|url= http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/3/478.full.pdf
	|volume= 57 |issue= 4 |page= 290
			|doi=10.1111/j.1365-246x.1997.tb06591.x
	}}.
			|bibcode= 1997GeoJI.131..478S
	*{{citation
			|s2cid= 129578066
	|last1= Suzuki |first1= Ziro
			}}{{dead link|date=May 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}.
	|year= 1982
	|title= Earthquake Prediction
			* {{citation
	|journal= Annual Review of Earth Planetary Science
	|volume= 10 |issue= |pages= 235–256
	|url= http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1982AREPS..10..235S&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
	}}.
	*{{citation
	|last1= Sykes |first1= Lynn R.		|last1= Sykes |first1= Lynn R.
	|last2= Shaw |first2= Bruce E.		|last2= Shaw |first2= Bruce E.
Line 1,668:		Line 2,708:
	|title= Rethinking Earthquake Prediction		|title= Rethinking Earthquake Prediction
	|journal= Pure and Applied Geophysics		|journal= Pure and Applied Geophysics
	|volume= 155 |issue= |pages= 207–232		|volume= 155 |issue= 2–4|pages= 207–232
	|doi= 10.1007/s000240050263		|doi= 10.1007/s000240050263
	|url= http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf		|url= http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf
	|bibcode = 1999PApGe.155..207S }}.		|bibcode = 1999PApGe.155..207S
			|s2cid= 11412679
	*{{citation
			}}.
	|last1= Talwani |first1= Pradeep
	|year= 1981
			* {{Citation
	|chapter= Earthquake Prediction Studies in South Carolina
			|last1=Tarasov|first1=N. T.
	|chapter-url= http://www.agu.org/books/me/v004/ME004p0381.pdf
			|last2=Tarasova|first2=N. V.
	|title= Earthquake Prediction: An International Review
			|date=2009-12-18
	|publisher= AGU
			|title=Spatial-temporal structure of seismicity of the North Tien Shan and its changeunder effect of high energy electromagnetic pulses
	|series= Maurice Ewing Series
			|url=http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/3272
	|volume= 4
			|journal=Annals of Geophysics
	|pages= 381–393
			|volume=47
			|issue=1
			|doi=10.4401/ag-3272
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			* {{citation
			|last1= Thomas |first1= J. N.
			|last2= Love |first2= J. J.
			|last3= Johnston |first3= M. J. S.
			|year= 2009
			|title= On the reported magnetic precursor of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
			|journal= Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
			|volume= 173 |issue= 3–4|pages= 207–215
			|doi= 10.1016/j.pepi.2008.11.014
			|bibcode = 2009PEPI..173..207T
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{cite conference
	|last= Thomas |first= Lee M.
			|last1= Thomas |first1= Lee M.
	|year= 1983		|year= 1983
	|chapter= Economic impacts of earthquake prediction		|title= Economic impacts of earthquake prediction
	|chapter-url= http://65.182.2.242/docum/crid/Septiembre-Octubre2005/CD-1/pdf/eng/doc15935/doc15935-contenido.pdf		|url= http://65.182.2.242/docum/crid/Septiembre-Octubre2005/CD-1/pdf/eng/doc15935/doc15935-contenido.pdf
	|title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories		|book-title= Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories
	|location= Geneva, 12–15 October 1982		|conference= Geneva, 12–15 October 1982
	|publisher= UNDPRO		|publisher= UNDPRO |pages= 179–185
			}}
	|pages= 179–185
	}}.
	*{{citation		* {{citation
	|last1= Tiampo |first1= Kristy F.		|last1= Tiampo |first1= Kristy F.
	|last2= Shcherbakov |first2= Robert		|last2= Shcherbakov |first2= Robert
Line 1,699:		Line 2,756:
	|title= Seismicity-based earthquake forecasting techniques: Ten years of progress		|title= Seismicity-based earthquake forecasting techniques: Ten years of progress
	|journal= Tectonophysics		|journal= Tectonophysics
	|volume= 522—523 |issue= |pages= 89–121		|volume= 522–523 |pages= 89–121
	|doi= 10.1016/j.tecto.2011.08.019		|doi= 10.1016/j.tecto.2011.08.019
	|url= http://www.upo.es/eps/troncoso/Citas/ESWA10/citaESWA-3.pdf		|url= http://www.upo.es/eps/troncoso/Citas/ESWA10/citaESWA-3.pdf
	|bibcode = 2012Tectp.522...89T }}.		|bibcode = 2012Tectp.522...89T
			}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Tierney |first1= Kathleen J.		|last1= Tierney |first1= Kathleen J.
	|year= 1993		|year= 1993
Line 1,710:		Line 2,769:
	|editor1-last= Platt |editor1-first= Gerald M.		|editor1-last= Platt |editor1-first= Gerald M.
	|editor2-last= Gordon |editor2-first= Chad		|editor2-last= Gordon |editor2-first= Chad
	|title= Self, Collective Behavior, and Society: Essays Honoring the Contributions of Ralph H. Turner		|title= Self, Collective Behavior, and Society: Essays Honoring the Contributions of Ralph H. Turner
	|publisher= JAI Press		|publisher= JAI Press
	|isbn= 978-155938755-2		|isbn= 978-1-55938-755-2
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{Citation
	|last1= Turcotte |first1= Donald L.
			|last1=Tsolis|first1=G. S.
	|year= 1991
			|last2=Xenos|first2=T. D.
	|title= Earthquake Prediction
			|date=2010-01-22
	|journal= Annual Review of Earth Planetary Science
			|title=A qualitative study of the seismo-ionospheric precursors prior to the 6 April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy
	|volume= 19 |issue= |pages= 263–281
			|url=https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/133/2010/
	|doi=
			|journal=Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
	|url= http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1991areps..19..263t&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf
			|volume=10|issue=1|pages=133–137
	}}.
			|doi=10.5194/nhess-10-133-2010
	*{{citation
			|bibcode=2010NHESS..10..133T
			|issn=1561-8633
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			* {{citation
	|last1= Turner |first1= Ralph H.		|last1= Turner |first1= Ralph H.
	|date= November 1993		|date= November 1993
	|title= Reflections on the Past and Future of Social Research on Earthquake Warnings		|title= Reflections on the Past and Future of Social Research on Earthquake Warnings
	|journal= International Journal of Mass Emergecnies and Disasters,		|journal= International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters
	|volume= 11 |issue= 3 |pages= :454–468		|volume= 11 |issue= 3 |pages= 454–468
			|doi= 10.1177/028072709301100314
	|doi=
			|s2cid= 112795022
	|url= http://www.ijmed.org/articles/39/download/		|url= http://www.ijmed.org/articles/39/download/
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{citation
	|ref= CITEREFUSGS Circular 7291976
			|ref= {{harvid|USGS staff|1990}}
	|author= U.S. Geological Survey
	|year= 1976
	|title= Earth Prediction — Opportunity to Avert Disaster; A conference on earthquake warning and response held in San Francisco, California, on November 7, 1975.
	|journal= U.S. Geological Survey
	|volume= Circular 729
	|pages= 6–9
	|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1976/0729/report.pdf
	}}. <small>(Sometimes attributed to McKelvey, who wrote the Forward.)</small>
	*{{citation
	|ref= CITEREFUSGS staff1990
	|author= U.S. Geological Survey Staff		|author= U.S. Geological Survey Staff
	|date= 19 January 1990		|date= 19 January 1990
	|title= The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake: an anticipated event		|title= The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake: an anticipated event
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 247 |pages= 286–293		|volume= 247 |issue= 4940 |pages= 286–293
	|doi= 10.1126/science.247.4940.286		|doi= 10.1126/science.247.4940.286
			|pmid= 17735847
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/247/4940/286.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1990Sci...247..286G }}.		|bibcode = 1990Sci...247..286G
			}}.
			* {{citation
			|first1= Seiya |last1= Uyeda
			|first2= Toshiyasu |last2= Nagao
			|first3= Masashi |last3= Kamogawa
			|date=2009-05-29
			|title=Short-term earthquake prediction: Current status of seismo-electromagnetics
			|journal=Tectonophysics
			|volume=470|issue=3–4|pages=205–213
			|doi=10.1016/j.tecto.2008.07.019
			|bibcode=2009Tectp.470..205U
			}}.
	*{{Citation		*{{Citation
	|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.		|first1= Seiya |last1= Uyeda
			|first2= Masashi |last2= Kamogawa
			|date= 23 September 2008
			|title= The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece
			|journal= Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
			|volume=89|issue=39|page=363
			|doi=10.1029/2008EO390002
			|issn=2324-9250
			|bibcode=2008EOSTr..89..363U
			|doi-access=free
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|first1= S. |last1= Uyeda
			|chapter= Introduction to the VAN method of earthquake prediction
			|editor-first = James |editor-last = Lighthill
			|title= A Critical Review of VAN – Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electrical Signals
			|year= 1996
			|isbn= 978-981-02-2670-1
			|publisher= World Scientific Publishing
			|location= London
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Uyeda |first1= Seiya
			|date= November 24, 1998
			|title= VAN Method of Short-term Earthquake Prediction Shows Promise
			|journal= Eos
			|volume= 79 |issue= 47 |pages= 573–580
			|doi= 10.1029/98EO00417
			|bibcode=1998EOSTr..79..573U
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Uyeda |first1= Seiya
			|date= 4 January 2000
			|department= Forum
			|title= In Defense of VAN's Earthquake Predictions
			|journal= Eos
			|volume= 81 |issue= 1 |pages= 3–6
			|doi= 10.1029/00EO00005
			|bibcode=2000EOSTr..81....3U
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Uyeda|first1=Seiya
			|last2=Kamogawa|first2=Masashi
			|date=2010
			|title=Reply to Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"
			|journal=Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
			|volume=91|issue=18|page=163
			|doi=10.1029/2010EO180004
			|bibcode=2010EOSTr..91..163U
			|issn=0096-3941
			|doi-access=free
			}}
			*{{Citation
			|editor= Gupta H.K.
			|chapter = Earthquake Precursors and Prediction
			|last1 = Uyeda
			|first1 = S.
			|last2 = Nagao
			|first2 = T.
			|last3 = Kamogawa
			|first3 = M.
			|title=Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics
			|series=Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series
			|year=2011
			|doi=10.1007/978-90-481-8702-7
			|isbn=978-90-481-8701-0
			}}
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
			|last2= Alexopoulos |first2= K.
			|last3= Nomicos |first3= K.
			|year= 1981
			|title= Seven-hour precursors to earthquakes determined from telluric currents
			|journal= Praktika of the Academy of Athens
			|volume= 56 |pages= 417–433
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
			|last2= Alexopoulos |first2= K.
			|date= December 1984a
			|title= Physical properties of the variations of the electric field of the earth preceding earthquakes, I
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 110|issue= 1|pages= 73–98
			|doi=10.1016/0040-1951(84)90059-3
			|bibcode = 1984Tectp.110...73V
			|url= http://physlab.phys.uoa.gr/org/pdf/tecto84a.pdf
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
			|last2= Alexopoulos |first2= K.
			|date= December 1984b
			|title= Physical properties of the variations of the electric field of the earth preceding earthquakes. II. determination of epicenter and magnitude
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 110|issue= 1|pages= 99–125
			|doi=10.1016/0040-1951(84)90060-X
			|bibcode = 1984Tectp.110...99V
			|url= http://physlab.phys.uoa.gr/org/pdf/tecto84b.pdf
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
			|last2= Alexopoulos |first2= K.
			|last3= Lazaridou |first3= M.
			|date= August 1993
			|title= Latest aspects of earthquake prediction in Greece based on seismic electric signals, II
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 224|issue= 1|pages= 1–37
			|doi=10.1016/0040-1951(93)90055-O
			|bibcode = 1993Tectp.224....1V
			|url= http://www.gt-crust.ru/jour/article/view/220
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
			|last2= Eftaxias |first2= K.
			|last3= Lazaridou |first3= M.
			|date= 27 May 1996
			|title=Reply I to "VAN: Candidacy and validation with the latest laws of the game" and "Precursor candidacy and validation: The VAN Case so far"
			|journal=Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1331–1334
			|doi= 10.1029/96GL01436
			|issn= 1944-8007
			|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1331V
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
	|last2= Lazaridou |first2= M.		|last2= Lazaridou |first2= M.
	|year= 1991		|year= 1991
Line 1,762:		Line 2,967:
	|bibcode= 1991Tectp.188..321V		|bibcode= 1991Tectp.188..321V
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			*{{citation
	|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
	|last2= Alexopoulos |first2= K.		|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
	|last3= Nomicos |first3= K.		|last2= Lazaridou |first2= M.
			|last3= Eftaxias |first3= K.
	|year= 1981
			|last4= Antonopoulos |first4= G.
	|title= Seven-hour precursors to earthquakes determined from telluric currents
			|last5= Makris |first5= J.
	|journal= Praktika of the Academy of Athens
	|volume= 56 |pages= 417–433		|last6= Kopanas |first6= J.
			|date= 1996a
			|chapter= Short-term earthquake prediction in Greece by seismic electric signals
			|title= A Critical Review of VAN
			|pages= 29–76
			|editor1-last= Lighthill |editor1-first= J.
			|publisher= World Scientific
	}}.		}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
			|last2= Lazaridou |first2= M.
			|date= 27 May 1996b
			|title=Reply to "The VAN earthquake predictions," by D. A. Rhoades and F. F. Evison
			|journal=Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume= 23 |issue= 11 |pages= 1375–1378
			|doi= 10.1029/96GL00910
			|issn= 1944-8007
			|bibcode= 1996GeoRL..23.1375V
			}}.
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Varotsos
			|first1=P.
			|last2=Lazaridou
			|first2=M.
			|last3=Hadjicontis
			|first3=V.
			|date=1996-05-27
			|title=Reply to "Earthquake prediction evaluation standards applied to the VAN Method"
			|journal=Geophysical Research Letters
			|volume=23|issue=11|pages=1367–1370
			|doi=10.1029/96GL00916
			|issn=1944-8007
			|bibcode = 1996GeoRL..23.1367V
			}}.
	*{{Citation		*{{Citation
	|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.		|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
	|last2= Alexopoulos |first2= K.		|last2= Alexopoulos |first2= K.
	|last3= Nomicos |first3= K.		|last3= Nomicos |first3= K.
	|last4= Lazaridou |first4= M.		|last4= Lazaridou |first4= M.
	|year= 1986		|year= 1986
	|title= Earthquake prediction and electric signals		|title= Earthquake prediction and electric signals
Line 1,782:		Line 3,022:
	|doi= 10.1038/322120a0		|doi= 10.1038/322120a0
	|bibcode= 1986Natur.322..120V		|bibcode= 1986Natur.322..120V
			|s2cid= 4304127
			|doi-access= free
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P.
			|last2= Alexopoulos |first2= K.
			|last3= Nomicos |first3= K.
			|last4= Lazaridou |first4= M.
			|date= 20 September 1988
			|title= Official earthquake prediction procedure in Greece
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 152 |issue= 3–4 |pages= 93–196
			|doi=10.1016/0040-1951(88)90045-5
			|bibcode= 1988Tectp.152..193V
	}}.		}}.
			* {{Citation
			|first1= P. |last1= Varotsos
			|first2= N. |last2= Sarlis
			|first3= M. |last3= Lazaridou
			|first4= P. |last4= Kapiris
			|year= 1998
			|title= Transmission of stress induced electric signals
			|journal= Journal of Applied Physics
			|volume= 83 |issue= 1 |pages= 60–70
			|doi= 10.1063/1.366702
			|bibcode= 1998JAP....83...60V
			}}.
	*{{Citation		*{{Citation
			|first1= P. A. |last1= Varotsos
			|first2= N. V. |last2= Sarlis
			|first3= E. S. |last3= Skordas
			|date= 22 November 2001
			|title= Spatio-temporal complexity aspects on the interrelation between seismic electric signals and seismicity
			|journal= Praktika of the Academy of Athens
			|volume= 76 |pages= 294–321
			|url= http://physlab.phys.uoa.gr/org/pdf/p3.pdf
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P. A.
			|last2= Sarlis |first2= N. V.
			|last3= Skordas |first3= E. S.
			|date= 26 February 2003a
			|title= Long-range correlations in the electric signals that precede rupture: Further investigations
			|journal= Physical Review E
			|volume= 67|issue=2 |page=021109
			|doi= 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021109
			|pmid=12636655
			|bibcode=2003PhRvE..67b1109V
			|url= http://physlab.phys.uoa.gr/org/pdf/d38.pdf
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1= Varotsos |first1= P. A.
			|last2= Sarlis |first2= N. V.
			|last3= Skordas |first3= E. S.
			|date=23 September 2003b
			|title= Attempt to distinguish electric signals of a dichotomous nature
			|journal= Physical Review E
			|volume= 68|issue=3 |page=031106
			|doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.68.031106
			|pmid=14524749
			|bibcode=2003PhRvE..68c1106V
			|url= http://physlab.phys.uoa.gr/org/pdf/d39.pdf
			}}.
			* {{Citation
	|first1= P. |last1= Varotsos		|first1= P. |last1= Varotsos
	|first2= N. |last2= Sarlis		|first2= N. |last2= Sarlis
	|first3= E. |last3= Skordas		|first3= E. |last3= Skordas
	|year= 2011		|year= 2011
	|title= Natural time analysis : the new view of time ; Precursory seismic electric signals, earthquakes and other complex time series		|title= Natural time analysis: the new view of time; Precursory seismic electric signals, earthquakes and other complex time series
	|publisher= Springer Praxis		|publisher= Springer Praxis
	|isbn= 364216448-X		|isbn= 978-3-642-16448-4
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			*{{Citation
			|first1= P. A. |last1= Varotsos
			|first2= N. V. |last2= Sarlis
			|first3= E. S. |last3= Skordas
			|first4= M. S. |last4= Lazaridou
			|date= 18 March 2013
			|title= Seismic Electric Signals: An additional fact showing their physical interconnection with seismicity
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 589 |pages= 116–125
			|doi= 10.1016/j.tecto.2012.12.020
			|bibcode= 2013Tectp.589..116V
			|url= http://physlab.phys.uoa.gr/org/pdf/tecto2013.pdf
			}}.
			*{{Citation
			|last1=Varotsos|first1=P. A.
			|last2=Sarlis|first2=N. V.
			|last3=Skordas|first3=E. S.
			|date=2020-12-17
			|title=Self-organized criticality and earthquake predictability: A long-standing question in the light of natural time analysis
			|url=https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/132/29001
			|journal=EPL (Europhysics Letters)
			|volume=132|issue=2|page=29001
			|doi=10.1209/0295-5075/132/29001
			|bibcode=2020EL....13229001V
			|s2cid=230670498
			|issn=1286-4854
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Vidale |first1= John E.		|last1= Vidale |first1= John E.
			|s2cid= 129107396
	|date= 16 February 1996		|date= 16 February 1996
	|title= Do Big and Little Earthquakes Start Differently?		|title= Do Big and Little Earthquakes Start Differently?
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 271 |issue= |pages= 953		|volume= 271 |issue= 5251|pages= 953–954
	|doi= 10.1126/science.271.5251.953		|doi= 10.1126/science.271.5251.953
			|bibcode = 1996Sci...271..953V
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/271/5251/953.full.pdf
			}}.
	|bibcode = 1996Sci...271..953V }}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Wade |first1= Nicholas		|last1= Wade |first1= Nicholas
	|date= 14 October 1977		|date= 14 October 1977
	|title= Briefing: More Flowers, less Cabbage		|title= Briefing: More Flowers, less Cabbage
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 198 |pages= 176–177		|volume= 198 |issue= 4313 |pages= 176–177
	|doi= 10.1126/science.198.4313.176-a		|doi= 10.1126/science.198.4313.176-a
			|pmid= 17755352
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/198/4313/176.2.full.pdf
	|bibcode = 1977Sci...198..176W }}.		|bibcode = 1977Sci...198..176W
			|s2cid= 26607710
	*{{citation
			}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Wang |first1= Kelin		|last1= Wang |first1= Kelin
	|last2= Chen |first2= Qi-Fu		|last2= Chen |first2= Qi-Fu
	|last3= Sun |first3= Shihong		|last3= Sun |first3= Shihong
	|last4= Wang |first4= Andong		|last4= Wang |first4= Andong
	|date= June 2006		|date= June 2006
Line 1,819:		Line 3,162:
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 96 |issue= 3 |pages= 757–795		|volume= 96 |issue= 3 |pages= 757–795
	|doi= 10.1s85/0120050191		|doi= 10.1785/0120050191
	|url= http://image.sciencenet.cn/olddata/kexue.com.cn/upload/blog/file/2008/6/200861418434216280.pdf		|url= http://image.sciencenet.cn/olddata/kexue.com.cn/upload/blog/file/2008/6/200861418434216280.pdf
			|bibcode= 2006BuSSA..96..757W
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Ward |first1= Peter L.		|last1= Ward |first1= Peter L.
	|year= 1978		|year= 1978
Line 1,828:		Line 3,173:
	|title= Geophysical predictions		|title= Geophysical predictions
	|publisher = National Academy of Sciences		|publisher = National Academy of Sciences
	|url= http://www.tetontectonics.org/Publications/Ward1978EarthquakePrediction.pdf		|chapter-url= http://www.tetontectonics.org/Publications/Ward1978EarthquakePrediction.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|first1= D. L. |last1= Wells		|first1= D. L. |last1= Wells
	|first2= K. J. |last2= Coppersmith		|first2= K. J. |last2= Coppersmith
	|date= August 1994		|date= August 1994
	|title= New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement.		|title= New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement.
	|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America		|journal= Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
	|volume= 84 |issue= 4 |pages= 974–1002		|volume= 84 |issue= 4 |pages= 974–1002
	|doi=		|doi= 10.1785/BSSA0840040974
			|bibcode= 1994BuSSA..84..974W
			|s2cid= 10561127
	|url= http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~rallen/teaching/eps256-s07/WellsCoppersmith1994.pdf		|url= http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~rallen/teaching/eps256-s07/WellsCoppersmith1994.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Whitcomb |first1= J. H.		|last1= Whitcomb |first1= J. H.
	|year= 1977		|year= 1977
Line 1,848:		Line 3,197:
	|url= https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ASRsb0VEtZwJ:192.102.233.13/journals/eo/v058/i005/EO058i005p00303/EO058i005p00303_mtg.pdf		|url= https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ASRsb0VEtZwJ:192.102.233.13/journals/eo/v058/i005/EO058i005p00303/EO058i005p00303_mtg.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Whitham |first1= K.		|last1= Whitham |first1= K.
	|last2= Berry |first2= M.J.		|last2= Berry |first2= M.J.
Line 1,857:		Line 3,207:
	|title= Earthquake Prediction in China		|title= Earthquake Prediction in China
	|journal= Geoscience Canada		|journal= Geoscience Canada
	|volume= 3 |issue= 4 |pages= 263–268		|volume= 3 |issue= 4 |pages=96, 263–268
	|url= http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/GC/article/download/1210/1584		|url= http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/GC/article/download/1210/1584
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|first1= H. O. |last1= Wood		|first1= H. O. |last1= Wood
	|first2= B. |last2= Gutenberg		|first2= B. |last2= Gutenberg
Line 1,867:		Line 3,218:
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 82 |issue= 2123 |pages= 219–320		|volume= 82 |issue= 2123 |pages= 219–320
			|bibcode = 1935Sci....82..219W |doi = 10.1126/science.82.2123.219
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/82/2123/219.full.pdf
			|pmid= 17818812
	|bibcode = 1935Sci....82..219W |doi = 10.1126/science.82.2123.219 }}.
	*{{citation
	|ref= CITEREFSouthern SAF Working Group1991
	|author= Working Group &#91;on the southern San Andreas fault&#93;
	|year= 1991
	|title= Short-Term Earthquake Hazard Assessment for the San Andreas Fault in Southern California
	|journal= U.S. Geological Survey
	|volume= Open-File Report 91-32
	|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1991/0032/report.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{Citation
	|ref = CITEREFUCERF2008
			|first1= M. |last1= Wyss
	|author= Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
	|year= 2008		|date= 1991a
			|title= Introduction
	|title= The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF2)
	|journal= U.S. Geological Survey		|journal= Tectonophysics
	|volume= Open-File Report 2007-1437		|volume= 193 |issue= 4 |pages= 253–254
			|doi=10.1016/0040-1951(91)90334-o
	|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1437/of2007-1437_text.pdf
			|bibcode= 1991Tectp.193..253W
	}}. Also published as .
			}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|last1= Wyss |first1= M.		|last1= Wyss |first1= M.
	|year= 1996		|year= 1996
	|chapter= Brief summary of some reasons why the VAN hypothesis for predicting earthquakes has to be rejected		|chapter= Brief summary of some reasons why the VAN hypothesis for predicting earthquakes has to be rejected
	|title= A critical review of VAN		|title= A critical review of VAN
	|pages= 250–266		|pages= 250–266
	|publisher= Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific		|publisher= Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific
	|place= London		|place= London
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|last1= Wyss |first1= M.		|last1= Wyss |first1= M.
	|last2= Allmann |first2= L.		|last2= Allmann |first2= L.
	|year= 1996		|year= 1996
	|title= Probability of chance correlations of earthquakes with prediction in areas of heterogeneous seismicity rate: the VAN case		|title= Probability of chance correlations of earthquakes with prediction in areas of heterogeneous seismicity rate: the VAN case
	|journal= ]		|journal= ]
	|volume= 22 |pages= 1307–1310		|volume= 22 |issue= 11 |pages= 1307–1310
	|doi= 10.1029/95GL03548		|doi= 10.1029/95GL03548
	|bibcode= 1996GeoRL..23.1307W		|bibcode= 1996GeoRL..23.1307W
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Wyss |first1= Max		|last1= Wyss |first1= Max
	|last2= Booth |first2= David C.		|last2= Booth |first2= David C.
Line 1,914:		Line 3,261:
	|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 423–424		|volume= 131 |issue= 3 |pages= 423–424
	|url= http://www.citeulike.org/pdf_export/user/zxxfjc/article/10560236		|url= http://www.citeulike.org/pdf_export/user/zxxfjc/article/10560236
	|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..423W |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06587.x }}.		|bibcode = 1997GeoJI.131..423W |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06587.x
			|doi-access= free
	*{{citation
			}}.
	|ref=CITEREFLSP2012
	|author= Zbikowski, Douglas W., Institute for Celestial Geodynamics
			*{{Citation
	|date= 15 Dec 2012
			|last1= Yoshii |first1= Hiroaki
	|title= Location Studies Plan
			|date= 30 August 1993
	|url= http://www.celestialgeodynamics.org/content/location-studies-plan-pdf
			|title= Social impacts of earthquake prediction in Greece
			|journal= Tectonophysics
			|volume= 224 |issue= 1–3 |pages= 251–255
			|doi= 10.1016/0040-1951(93)90077-W
			|bibcode= 1993Tectp.224..251Y
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{cite thesis
	|last1= Zechar |first1= J. Douglas
			|last1 = Zechar
	|date= August 2008
			|first1 = J. Douglas
	|title= Methods for Evaluating Earthquake Prediction &#91;dissertation&#93;
			|date = August 2008
	|publisher= Univ. of Southern California
			|title = Methods for Evaluating Earthquake Prediction |type = PhD dissertation
	|url= http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf
			|publisher = Univ. of Southern California
	}}.
			|url = http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf
	*{{citation
	|last1= Zechar |first1= J. Douglas
			|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20131002130801/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf
	|last2= Jordan |first2= Thomas H.
			|archive-date = 2 October 2013
	|year= 2008
			}}
	|title= Testing alarm-based earthquake predictions
	|journal= Geophysical Journal International
			* {{citation
	|volume= 172 |issue= 2 |pages= 715–724
			|last1 = Zechar
	|doi= 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03676.x
			|first1 = J. Douglas
	|url= http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf
			|last2 = Jordan
	|bibcode = 2008GeoJI.172..715Z
			|first2 = Thomas H.
			|year = 2008
			|title = Testing alarm-based earthquake predictions
			|journal = Geophysical Journal International
			|volume = 172
			|issue = 2
			|pages = 715–724
			|doi = 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03676.x
			|doi-access = free
			|url = http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf
			|bibcode = 2008GeoJI.172..715Z
			|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161211/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf
			|archive-date = 29 April 2014
	}}.		}}.
	*{{Citation
			* {{Citation
	|first1= J. Douglas |last1= Zechar		|first1= J. Douglas |last1= Zechar
	|first2= Danijel |last2= Schorlemmer		|first2= Danijel |last2= Schorlemmer
Line 1,951:		Line 3,318:
	|title= The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability perspective on computational earthquake science		|title= The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability perspective on computational earthquake science
	|journal= Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience		|journal= Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience
	|volume= 22 |issue= |pages= 1836–1847		|volume= 22 |issue= 12|pages= 1836–1847
	|doi= 10.1002/cpe.1519		|doi= 10.1002/cpe.1519
			|s2cid= 12672343
	|url= http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf		|url= http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{Citation
			|last1=Zeigarnik|first1=Vladimir A.
			|last2=Novikov|first2=Viktor A.
			|last3=Avagimov|first3=A. A.
			|last4=Tarasov|first4=N. T.
			|last5=Bogomolov|first5=Leonid
			|year=2007
			|title=Discharge of Tectonic Stresses in the Earth Crust by High-power Electric Pulses for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation
			|journal=2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction
			|location=Taipei
			|s2cid=195726703
			}}
			* {{citation
	|last1= Ziv |first1= A.		|last1= Ziv |first1= A.
	|last2= Cochard |first2= A.		|last2= Cochard |first2= A.
	|last3= Schmittbuhl |first3= J.		|last3= Schmittbuhl |first3= J.
	|year= 2007		|year= 2007
	|contribution= Does Elastic Rebound Theory apply to Seismic Faults?		|contribution= Does Elastic Rebound Theory apply to Seismic Faults?
	|editor1-last= Carpinteri |editor1-first= Alberto		|editor1-last= Carpinteri |editor1-first= Alberto
	|editor2-last= Lacidogna |editor2-first= Giuseppi		|editor2-last= Lacidogna |editor2-first= Giuseppi
	|title= Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Fracture, Turin, Italy, March 20-25, 2005		|title= Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Fracture, Turin, Italy, March 20–25, 2005
	|pages= 51–55		|pages= 51–55
	|isbn= 978-0-415-44402-6		|isbn= 978-0-415-44402-6
	|chapter-url= http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/9780203936115.ch7		|doi= 10.1201/9780203936115.ch7
			|doi-broken-date= 11 November 2024
	}} (eBook: 978-0-203-93611-5).
			|url= http://www.gruppofrattura.it/ocs/index.php/ICF/ICF11/paper/view/10647
	*{{citation
			}} (eBook: {{ISBN|978-0-203-93611-5}}.
			* {{citation
	|last1= Zoback |first1= Mark D.		|last1= Zoback |first1= Mark D.
	|date= 21 October 1983		|date= 21 October 1983
	|title= Seismology &#91;book review of Rikitake, ''Earthquake Forecasting and Warning''&#93;		|title= Seismology &#91;book review of Rikitake, ''Earthquake Forecasting and Warning''&#93;
	|journal= Science		|journal= Science
	|volume= 222 |page= 319		|volume= 222 |issue= 4621 |page= 319
	|bibcode = 1983Sci...222..319R |doi = 10.1126/science.222.4621.319		|bibcode = 1983Sci...222..319R |doi = 10.1126/science.222.4621.319
			|pmid= 17734830
	|url= http://www.sciencemag.org/content/222/4621/319.1.full.pdf
	}}.		}}.
	*{{citation
			* {{citation
	|last1= Zoback |first1= Mary Lou		|last1= Zoback |first1= Mary Lou
	|year= 2006		|s2cid= 129036731
	|date= April/May 2006		|date= April–May 2006
	|title= The 1906 earthquake and a century of progress in understanding earthquakes and their hazards.		|title= The 1906 earthquake and a century of progress in understanding earthquakes and their hazards
	|journal= GSA Today		|journal= GSA Today
	|volume= 16 |issue= r/5 |pages= 4–11		|volume= 16 |issue= r/5 |pages= 4–11
	|doi= 10.1130/GSAT01604.1		|doi= 10.1130/GSAT01604.1
			|bibcode= 2006GSAT...16d...4Z
	|url= http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/16/4/pdf/i1052-5173-16-4-4.pdf
			|doi-access= free
	}}.
			}}.
			{{refend}}
			== Addition reading ==
			* {{cite web|url=http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_050.php|title=Lunatic Earthquakes: Do Tides Cause Quakes?|first=Stuart|last=Robbins|publisher=Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast|date=1 September 2012}} – discussing why the claim that earthquakes can be predicted is false.
			* {{cite report|year= 1991|title=Short-Term Earthquake Hazard Assessment for the San Andreas Fault in Southern California|publisher=United States Geological Survey|id=Open-File Report 91-32|url= http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1991/0032/report.pdf}}
			* {{cite book |last1= Hough |first1= Susan Elizabeth |author-link= Susan Hough |year= 2007 |title= Richter's Scale: Measure of an Earthquake, Measure of a Man |publisher= Princeton University Press |isbn= 978-0-691-12807-8}}
			* {{cite journal |last1= Langer |first1= James S. |title=''Richter's Scale: Measure of an Earthquake, Measure of a Man'' , Susan Elizabeth Hough , Princeton U. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007. (335 pp.). {{text|ISBN}} 978-0-691-12807-8 |year= 2008 |journal= Physics Today |volume= 61 |issue= 1 |pages= 60–62 |bibcode= 2008PhT....61a..60H |doi= 10.1063/1.2835157}}
			* G.-P. Ostermeyer, V.L. Popov, E. Shilko, O. Vasiljeva (2021). . In memory of Professor Sergey Psakhie. Springer Int. Publ. {{doi|10.1007/978-3-030-60124-9}}
			== External links ==
			* U.S. Geological Survey:
	{{refend}} {{div col end}}
			* U.S. Geological Survey:
			{{Authority control}}
	==External links==
	* U.S. Geological Survey:
	* '''' magazine - debate on whether earthquake prediction is a realistic scientific goal
	* {{cite web|url=http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_050.php|title=Lunatic Earthquakes: Do Tides Cause Quakes?|author=Dr Stuart Robbins|publisher=Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast|date=September 1, 2012|accessdate=April 2013}} - Podcast discussing why the claim that earthquakes can be predicted is false.
	{{DEFAULTSORT:Earthquake Prediction}}
	]		]
	]		]

---

Latest revision as of 22:06, 24 November 2024

Branch of seismology For probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard, see earthquake forecasting.

Part of a series on
Earthquakes
Types Mainshock Foreshock Aftershock Blind thrust Doublet Interplate Intraplate Megathrust Remotely triggered Slow Submarine Supershear Tsunami Earthquake swarm
Causes Fault movement Volcanism Induced seismicity
Characteristics Epicenter Epicentral distance Hypocenter Shadow zone Seismic waves P wave S wave
Measurement Seismometer Seismic magnitude scales Seismic intensity scales
Prediction Coordinating Committee for Earthquake Prediction Forecasting
Other topics Shear wave splitting Adams–Williamson equation Flinn–Engdahl regions Earthquake engineering Seismite Seismology
Earth Sciences Portal Category Related topics
v t e

Earthquake prediction is a branch of the science of seismology concerned with the specification of the time, location, and magnitude of future earthquakes within stated limits, and particularly "the determination of parameters for the next strong earthquake to occur in a region". Earthquake prediction is sometimes distinguished from earthquake forecasting, which can be defined as the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard, including the frequency and magnitude of damaging earthquakes in a given area over years or decades.

Prediction can be further distinguished from earthquake warning systems, which, upon detection of an earthquake, provide a real-time warning of seconds to neighboring regions that might be affected.

In the 1970s, scientists were optimistic that a practical method for predicting earthquakes would soon be found, but by the 1990s continuing failure led many to question whether it was even possible. Demonstrably successful predictions of large earthquakes have not occurred, and the few claims of success are controversial. For example, the most famous claim of a successful prediction is that alleged for the 1975 Haicheng earthquake. A later study said that there was no valid short-term prediction. Extensive searches have reported many possible earthquake precursors, but, so far, such precursors have not been reliably identified across significant spatial and temporal scales. While part of the scientific community hold that, taking into account non-seismic precursors and given enough resources to study them extensively, prediction might be possible, most scientists are pessimistic and some maintain that earthquake prediction is inherently impossible.

Evaluating earthquake predictions

See also: Prediction § Prediction in science

Predictions are deemed significant if they can be shown to be successful beyond random chance. Therefore, methods of statistical hypothesis testing are used to determine the probability that an earthquake such as is predicted would happen anyway (the null hypothesis). The predictions are then evaluated by testing whether they correlate with actual earthquakes better than the null hypothesis.

In many instances, however, the statistical nature of earthquake occurrence is not simply homogeneous. Clustering occurs in both space and time. In southern California about 6% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km." In central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 48 hours and 30 km. While such statistics are not satisfactory for purposes of prediction (giving ten to twenty false alarms for each successful prediction) they will skew the results of any analysis that assumes that earthquakes occur randomly in time, for example, as realized from a Poisson process. It has been shown that a "naive" method based solely on clustering can successfully predict about 5% of earthquakes; "far better than 'chance'".

As the purpose of short-term prediction is to enable emergency measures to reduce death and destruction, failure to give warning of a major earthquake, that does occur, or at least an adequate evaluation of the hazard, can result in legal liability, or even political purging. For example, it has been reported that members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences were purged for "having ignored scientific predictions of the disastrous Tangshan earthquake of summer 1976." Following the 2009 L'Aquila Earthquake, seven scientists and technicians in Italy were convicted of manslaughter, but not so much for failing to predict the earthquake, where some 300 people died, as for giving undue assurance to the populace – one victim called it "anaesthetizing" – that there would not be a serious earthquake, and therefore no need to take precautions. But warning of an earthquake that does not occur also incurs a cost: not only the cost of the emergency measures themselves, but of civil and economic disruption. False alarms, including alarms that are canceled, also undermine the credibility, and thereby the effectiveness, of future warnings. In 1999 it was reported that China was introducing "tough regulations intended to stamp out 'false' earthquake warnings, in order to prevent panic and mass evacuation of cities triggered by forecasts of major tremors." This was prompted by "more than 30 unofficial earthquake warnings ... in the past three years, none of which has been accurate." The acceptable trade-off between missed quakes and false alarms depends on the societal valuation of these outcomes. The rate of occurrence of both must be considered when evaluating any prediction method.

In a 1997 study of the cost-benefit ratio of earthquake prediction research in Greece, Stathis Stiros suggested that even a (hypothetical) excellent prediction method would be of questionable social utility, because "organized evacuation of urban centers is unlikely to be successfully accomplished", while "panic and other undesirable side-effects can also be anticipated." He found that earthquakes kill less than ten people per year in Greece (on average), and that most of those fatalities occurred in large buildings with identifiable structural issues. Therefore, Stiros stated that it would be much more cost-effective to focus efforts on identifying and upgrading unsafe buildings. Since the death toll on Greek highways is more than 2300 per year on average, he argued that more lives would also be saved if Greece's entire budget for earthquake prediction had been used for street and highway safety instead.

Prediction methods

Earthquake prediction is an immature science – it has not yet led to a successful prediction of an earthquake from first physical principles. Research into methods of prediction therefore focus on empirical analysis, with two general approaches: either identifying distinctive precursors to earthquakes, or identifying some kind of geophysical trend or pattern in seismicity that might precede a large earthquake. Precursor methods are pursued largely because of their potential utility for short-term earthquake prediction or forecasting, while 'trend' methods are generally thought to be useful for forecasting, long term prediction (10 to 100 years time scale) or intermediate term prediction (1 to 10 years time scale).

Precursors

An earthquake precursor is an anomalous phenomenon that might give effective warning of an impending earthquake. Reports of these – though generally recognized as such only after the event – number in the thousands, some dating back to antiquity. There have been around 400 reports of possible precursors in scientific literature, of roughly twenty different types, running the gamut from aeronomy to zoology. None have been found to be reliable for the purposes of earthquake prediction.

In the early 1990, the IASPEI solicited nominations for a Preliminary List of Significant Precursors. Forty nominations were made, of which five were selected as possible significant precursors, with two of those based on a single observation each.

After a critical review of the scientific literature, the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) concluded in 2011 there was "considerable room for methodological improvements in this type of research." In particular, many cases of reported precursors are contradictory, lack a measure of amplitude, or are generally unsuitable for a rigorous statistical evaluation. Published results are biased towards positive results, and so the rate of false negatives (earthquake but no precursory signal) is unclear.

Animal behavior

After an earthquake has already begun, pressure waves (P waves) travel twice as fast as the more damaging shear waves (s waves). Typically not noticed by humans, some animals may notice the smaller vibrations that arrive a few to a few dozen seconds before the main shaking, and become alarmed or exhibit other unusual behavior. Seismometers can also detect P waves, and the timing difference is exploited by electronic earthquake warning systems to provide humans with a few seconds to move to a safer location.

A review of scientific studies available as of 2018 covering over 130 species found insufficient evidence to show that animals could provide warning of earthquakes hours, days, or weeks in advance. Statistical correlations suggest some reported unusual animal behavior is due to smaller earthquakes (foreshocks) that sometimes precede a large quake, which if small enough may go unnoticed by people. Foreshocks may also cause groundwater changes or release gases that can be detected by animals. Foreshocks are also detected by seismometers, and have long been studied as potential predictors, but without success (see #Seismicity patterns). Seismologists have not found evidence of medium-term physical or chemical changes that predict earthquakes which animals might be sensing.

Anecdotal reports of strange animal behavior before earthquakes have been recorded for thousands of years. Some unusual animal behavior may be mistakenly attributed to a near-future earthquake. The flashbulb memory effect causes unremarkable details to become more memorable and more significant when associated with an emotionally powerful event such as an earthquake. Even the vast majority of scientific reports in the 2018 review did not include observations showing that animals did not act unusually when there was not an earthquake about to happen, meaning the behavior was not established to be predictive.

Most researchers investigating animal prediction of earthquakes are in China and Japan. Most scientific observations have come from the 2010 Canterbury earthquake in New Zealand, the 1984 Nagano earthquake in Japan, and the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake in Italy.

Animals known to be magnetoreceptive might be able to detect electromagnetic waves in the ultra low frequency and extremely low frequency ranges that reach the surface of the Earth before an earthquake, causing odd behavior. These electromagnetic waves could also cause air ionization, water oxidation and possible water toxification which other animals could detect.

Dilatancy–diffusion

In the 1970s the dilatancy–diffusion hypothesis was highly regarded as providing a physical basis for various phenomena seen as possible earthquake precursors. It was based on "solid and repeatable evidence" from laboratory experiments that highly stressed crystalline rock experienced a change in volume, or dilatancy, which causes changes in other characteristics, such as seismic velocity and electrical resistivity, and even large-scale uplifts of topography. It was believed this happened in a 'preparatory phase' just prior to the earthquake, and that suitable monitoring could therefore warn of an impending quake.

Detection of variations in the relative velocities of the primary and secondary seismic waves – expressed as Vp/Vs – as they passed through a certain zone was the basis for predicting the 1973 Blue Mountain Lake (NY) and 1974 Riverside (CA) quake. Although these predictions were informal and even trivial, their apparent success was seen as confirmation of both dilatancy and the existence of a preparatory process, leading to what were subsequently called "wildly over-optimistic statements" that successful earthquake prediction "appears to be on the verge of practical reality."

However, many studies questioned these results, and the hypothesis eventually languished. Subsequent study showed it "failed for several reasons, largely associated with the validity of the assumptions on which it was based", including the assumption that laboratory results can be scaled up to the real world. Another factor was the bias of retrospective selection of criteria. Other studies have shown dilatancy to be so negligible that Main et al. 2012 concluded: "The concept of a large-scale 'preparation zone' indicating the likely magnitude of a future event, remains as ethereal as the ether that went undetected in the Michelson–Morley experiment."

Changes in V_p/V_s

V_p is the symbol for the velocity of a seismic "P" (primary or pressure) wave passing through rock, while V_s is the symbol for the velocity of the "S" (secondary or shear) wave. Small-scale laboratory experiments have shown that the ratio of these two velocities – represented as V_p/V_s – changes when rock is near the point of fracturing. In the 1970s it was considered a likely breakthrough when Russian seismologists reported observing such changes (later discounted.) in the region of a subsequent earthquake. This effect, as well as other possible precursors, has been attributed to dilatancy, where rock stressed to near its breaking point expands (dilates) slightly.

Study of this phenomenon near Blue Mountain Lake in New York State led to a successful albeit informal prediction in 1973, and it was credited for predicting the 1974 Riverside (CA) quake. However, additional successes have not followed, and it has been suggested that these predictions were a fluke. A V_p/V_s anomaly was the basis of a 1976 prediction of a M 5.5 to 6.5 earthquake near Los Angeles, which failed to occur. Other studies relying on quarry blasts (more precise, and repeatable) found no such variations, while an analysis of two earthquakes in California found that the variations reported were more likely caused by other factors, including retrospective selection of data. Geller (1997) noted that reports of significant velocity changes have ceased since about 1980.

Radon emissions

Most rock contains small amounts of gases that can be isotopically distinguished from the normal atmospheric gases. There are reports of spikes in the concentrations of such gases prior to a major earthquake; this has been attributed to release due to pre-seismic stress or fracturing of the rock. One of these gases is radon, produced by radioactive decay of the trace amounts of uranium present in most rock. Radon is potentially useful as an earthquake predictor because it is radioactive and thus easily detected, and its short half-life (3.8 days) makes radon levels sensitive to short-term fluctuations.

A 2009 compilation listed 125 reports of changes in radon emissions prior to 86 earthquakes since 1966. The International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) however found in its 2011 critical review that the earthquakes with which these changes are supposedly linked were up to a thousand kilometers away, months later, and at all magnitudes. In some cases the anomalies were observed at a distant site, but not at closer sites. The ICEF found "no significant correlation".

Electromagnetic anomalies

Further information: Seismo-electromagnetics

Observations of electromagnetic disturbances and their attribution to the earthquake failure process go back as far as the Great Lisbon earthquake of 1755, but practically all such observations prior to the mid-1960s are invalid because the instruments used were sensitive to physical movement. Since then various anomalous electrical, electric-resistive, and magnetic phenomena have been attributed to precursory stress and strain changes that precede earthquakes, raising hopes for finding a reliable earthquake precursor. While a handful of researchers have gained much attention with either theories of how such phenomena might be generated, claims of having observed such phenomena prior to an earthquake, no such phenomena has been shown to be an actual precursor.

A 2011 review by the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) found the "most convincing" electromagnetic precursors to be ultra low frequency magnetic anomalies, such as the Corralitos event (discussed below) recorded before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. However, it is now believed that observation was a system malfunction. Study of the closely monitored 2004 Parkfield earthquake found no evidence of precursory electromagnetic signals of any type; further study showed that earthquakes with magnitudes less than 5 do not produce significant transient signals. The ICEF considered the search for useful precursors to have been unsuccessful.

VAN seismic electric signals

Main article: VAN method

The most touted, and most criticized, claim of an electromagnetic precursor is the VAN method of physics professors Panayiotis Varotsos, Kessar Alexopoulos and Konstantine Nomicos (VAN) of the University of Athens. In a 1981 paper they claimed that by measuring geoelectric voltages – what they called "seismic electric signals" (SES) – they could predict earthquakes.

In 1984, they claimed there was a "one-to-one correspondence" between SES and earthquakes – that is, that "every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ the magnitude and the epicenter of which can be reliably predicted" – the SES appearing between 6 and 115 hours before the earthquake. As proof of their method they claimed a series of successful predictions.

Although their report was "saluted by some as a major breakthrough", among seismologists it was greeted by a "wave of generalized skepticism". In 1996, a paper VAN submitted to the journal Geophysical Research Letters was given an unprecedented public peer-review by a broad group of reviewers, with the paper and reviews published in a special issue; the majority of reviewers found the methods of VAN to be flawed. Additional criticism was raised the same year in a public debate between some of the principals.

A primary criticism was that the method is geophysically implausible and scientifically unsound. Additional objections included the demonstrable falsity of the claimed one-to-one relationship of earthquakes and SES, the unlikelihood of a precursory process generating signals stronger than any observed from the actual earthquakes, and the very strong likelihood that the signals were man-made. Further work in Greece has tracked SES-like "anomalous transient electric signals" back to specific human sources, and found that such signals are not excluded by the criteria used by VAN to identify SES. More recent work, by employing modern methods of statistical physics, i.e., detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA), multifractal DFA and wavelet transform revealed that SES are clearly distinguished from signals produced by man made sources.

The validity of the VAN method, and therefore the predictive significance of SES, was based primarily on the empirical claim of demonstrated predictive success. Numerous weaknesses have been uncovered in the VAN methodology, and in 2011 the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection concluded that the prediction capability claimed by VAN could not be validated. Most seismologists consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked". On the other hand, the Section "Earthquake Precursors and Prediction" of "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics: part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series" (Springer 2011) ends as follows (just before its summary): "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain "natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data".

Since 2001, the VAN group has introduced a concept they call "natural time", applied to the analysis of their precursors. Initially it is applied on SES to distinguish them from noise and relate them to a possible impending earthquake. In case of verification (classification as "SES activity"), natural time analysis is additionally applied to the general subsequent seismicity of the area associated with the SES activity, in order to improve the time parameter of the prediction. The method treats earthquake onset as a critical phenomenon. A review of the updated VAN method in 2020 says that it suffers from an abundance of false positives and is therefore not usable as a prediction protocol. VAN group answered by pinpointing misunderstandings in the specific reasoning.

Corralitos anomaly

Probably the most celebrated seismo-electromagnetic event ever, and one of the most frequently cited examples of a possible earthquake precursor, is the 1989 Corralitos anomaly. In the month prior to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, measurements of the Earth's magnetic field at ultra-low frequencies by a magnetometer in Corralitos, California, just 7 km from the epicenter of the impending earthquake, started showing anomalous increases in amplitude. Just three hours before the quake, the measurements soared to about thirty times greater than normal, with amplitudes tapering off after the quake. Such amplitudes had not been seen in two years of operation, nor in a similar instrument located 54 km away. To many people such apparent locality in time and space suggested an association with the earthquake.

Additional magnetometers were subsequently deployed across northern and southern California, but after ten years and several large earthquakes, similar signals have not been observed. More recent studies have cast doubt on the connection, attributing the Corralitos signals to either unrelated magnetic disturbance or, even more simply, to sensor-system malfunction.

Freund physics

In his investigations of crystalline physics, Friedemann Freund found that water molecules embedded in rock can dissociate into ions if the rock is under intense stress. The resulting charge carriers can generate battery currents under certain conditions. Freund suggested that perhaps these currents could be responsible for earthquake precursors such as electromagnetic radiation, earthquake lights and disturbances of the plasma in the ionosphere. The study of such currents and interactions is known as "Freund physics".

Most seismologists reject Freund's suggestion that stress-generated signals can be detected and put to use as precursors, for a number of reasons. First, it is believed that stress does not accumulate rapidly before a major earthquake, and thus there is no reason to expect large currents to be rapidly generated. Secondly, seismologists have extensively searched for statistically reliable electrical precursors, using sophisticated instrumentation, and have not identified any such precursors. And thirdly, water in the Earth's crust would cause any generated currents to be absorbed before reaching the surface.

Disturbance of the daily cycle of the ionosphere

The ionosphere usually develops its lower D layer during the day, while at night this layer disappears as the plasma there turns to gas. During the night, the F layer of the ionosphere remains formed, in higher altitude than D layer. A waveguide for low HF radio frequencies up to 10 MHz is formed during the night (skywave propagation) as the F layer reflects these waves back to the Earth. The skywave is lost during the day, as the D layer absorbs these waves.

Tectonic stresses in the Earth's crust are claimed to cause waves of electric charges that travel to the surface of the Earth and affect the ionosphere. ULF* recordings of the daily cycle of the ionosphere indicate that the usual cycle could be disturbed a few days before a shallow strong earthquake. When the disturbance occurs, it is observed that either the D layer is lost during the day resulting to ionosphere elevation and skywave formation or the D layer appears at night resulting to lower of the ionosphere and hence absence of skywave.

Science centers have developed a network of VLF transmitters and receivers on a global scale that detect changes in skywave. Each receiver is also daisy transmitter for distances of 1000–10,000 kilometers and is operating at different frequencies within the network. The general area under excitation can be determined depending on the density of the network. It was shown on the other hand that global extreme events like magnetic storms or solar flares and local extreme events in the same VLF path like another earthquake or a volcano eruption that occur in near time with the earthquake under evaluation make it difficult or impossible to relate changes in skywave to the earthquake of interest.

In 2017, an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that the relationship between ionospheric anomalies and large seismic events (M≥6.0) occurring globally from 2000 to 2014 was based on the presence of solar weather. When the solar data are removed from the time series, the correlation is no longer statistically significant. A subsequent article in Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors in 2020 shows that solar weather and ionospheric disturbances are a potential cause to trigger large earthquakes based on this statistical relationship. The proposed mechanism is electromagnetic induction from the ionosphere to the fault zone. Fault fluids are conductive, and can produce telluric currents at depth. The resulting change in the local magnetic field in the fault triggers dissolution of minerals and weakens the rock, while also potentially changing the groundwater chemistry and level. After the seismic event, different minerals may be precipitated thus changing groundwater chemistry and level again. This process of mineral dissolution and precipitation before and after an earthquake has been observed in Iceland. This model makes sense of the ionospheric, seismic and groundwater data.

Satellite observation of the expected ground temperature declination

One way of detecting the mobility of tectonic stresses is to detect locally elevated temperatures on the surface of the crust measured by satellites. During the evaluation process, the background of daily variation and noise due to atmospheric disturbances and human activities are removed before visualizing the concentration of trends in the wider area of a fault. This method has been experimentally applied since 1995.

In a newer approach to explain the phenomenon, NASA's Friedmann Freund has proposed that the infrared radiation captured by the satellites is not due to a real increase in the surface temperature of the crust. According to this version the emission is a result of the quantum excitation that occurs at the chemical re-bonding of positive charge carriers (holes) which are traveling from the deepest layers to the surface of the crust at a speed of 200 meters per second. The electric charge arises as a result of increasing tectonic stresses as the time of the earthquake approaches. This emission extends superficially up to 500 x 500 square kilometers for very large events and stops almost immediately after the earthquake.

Trends

Instead of watching for anomalous phenomena that might be precursory signs of an impending earthquake, other approaches to predicting earthquakes look for trends or patterns that lead to an earthquake. As these trends may be complex and involve many variables, advanced statistical techniques are often needed to understand them, therefore these are sometimes called statistical methods. These approaches also tend to be more probabilistic, and to have larger time periods, and so merge into earthquake forecasting.

Nowcasting

For other uses, see Nowcasting.

Earthquake nowcasting, suggested in 2016 is the estimate of the current dynamic state of a seismological system, based on natural time introduced in 2001. It differs from forecasting which aims to estimate the probability of a future event but it is also considered a potential base for forecasting. Nowcasting calculations produce the "earthquake potential score", an estimation of the current level of seismic progress. Typical applications are: great global earthquakes and tsunamis, aftershocks and induced seismicity, induced seismicity at gas fields, seismic risk to global megacities, studying of clustering of large global earthquakes, etc.

Elastic rebound

Even the stiffest of rock is not perfectly rigid. Given a large force (such as between two immense tectonic plates moving past each other) the Earth's crust will bend or deform. According to the elastic rebound theory of Reid (1910), eventually the deformation (strain) becomes great enough that something breaks, usually at an existing fault. Slippage along the break (an earthquake) allows the rock on each side to rebound to a less deformed state. In the process energy is released in various forms, including seismic waves. The cycle of tectonic force being accumulated in elastic deformation and released in a sudden rebound is then repeated. As the displacement from a single earthquake ranges from less than a meter to around 10 meters (for an M 8 quake), the demonstrated existence of large strike-slip displacements of hundreds of miles shows the existence of a long running earthquake cycle.

Characteristic earthquakes

The most studied earthquake faults (such as the Nankai megathrust, the Wasatch Fault, and the San Andreas Fault) appear to have distinct segments. The characteristic earthquake model postulates that earthquakes are generally constrained within these segments. As the lengths and other properties of the segments are fixed, earthquakes that rupture the entire fault should have similar characteristics. These include the maximum magnitude (which is limited by the length of the rupture), and the amount of accumulated strain needed to rupture the fault segment. Since continuous plate motions cause the strain to accumulate steadily, seismic activity on a given segment should be dominated by earthquakes of similar characteristics that recur at somewhat regular intervals. For a given fault segment, identifying these characteristic earthquakes and timing their recurrence rate (or conversely return period) should therefore inform us about the next rupture; this is the approach generally used in forecasting seismic hazard. UCERF3 is a notable example of such a forecast, prepared for the state of California. Return periods are also used for forecasting other rare events, such as cyclones and floods, and assume that future frequency will be similar to observed frequency to date.

The idea of characteristic earthquakes was the basis of the Parkfield prediction: fairly similar earthquakes in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966 suggested a pattern of breaks every 21.9 years, with a standard deviation of ±3.1 years. Extrapolation from the 1966 event led to a prediction of an earthquake around 1988, or before 1993 at the latest (at the 95% confidence interval). The appeal of such a method is that the prediction is derived entirely from the trend, which supposedly accounts for the unknown and possibly unknowable earthquake physics and fault parameters. However, in the Parkfield case the predicted earthquake did not occur until 2004, a decade late. This seriously undercuts the claim that earthquakes at Parkfield are quasi-periodic, and suggests the individual events differ sufficiently in other respects to question whether they have distinct characteristics in common.

The failure of the Parkfield prediction has raised doubt as to the validity of the characteristic earthquake model itself. Some studies have questioned the various assumptions, including the key one that earthquakes are constrained within segments, and suggested that the "characteristic earthquakes" may be an artifact of selection bias and the shortness of seismological records (relative to earthquake cycles). Other studies have considered whether other factors need to be considered, such as the age of the fault. Whether earthquake ruptures are more generally constrained within a segment (as is often seen), or break past segment boundaries (also seen), has a direct bearing on the degree of earthquake hazard: earthquakes are larger where multiple segments break, but in relieving more strain they will happen less often.

Seismic gaps

At the contact where two tectonic plates slip past each other every section must eventually slip, as (in the long-term) none get left behind. But they do not all slip at the same time; different sections will be at different stages in the cycle of strain (deformation) accumulation and sudden rebound. In the seismic gap model the "next big quake" should be expected not in the segments where recent seismicity has relieved the strain, but in the intervening gaps where the unrelieved strain is the greatest. This model has an intuitive appeal; it is used in long-term forecasting, and was the basis of a series of circum-Pacific (Pacific Rim) forecasts in 1979 and 1989–1991.

However, some underlying assumptions about seismic gaps are now known to be incorrect. A close examination suggests that "there may be no information in seismic gaps about the time of occurrence or the magnitude of the next large event in the region"; statistical tests of the circum-Pacific forecasts shows that the seismic gap model "did not forecast large earthquakes well". Another study concluded that a long quiet period did not increase earthquake potential.

Seismicity patterns

Various heuristically derived algorithms have been developed for predicting earthquakes. Probably the most widely known is the M8 family of algorithms (including the RTP method) developed under the leadership of Vladimir Keilis-Borok. M8 issues a "Time of Increased Probability" (TIP) alarm for a large earthquake of a specified magnitude upon observing certain patterns of smaller earthquakes. TIPs generally cover large areas (up to a thousand kilometers across) for up to five years. Such large parameters have made M8 controversial, as it is hard to determine whether any hits that happened were skillfully predicted, or only the result of chance.

M8 gained considerable attention when the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes occurred within a TIP. In 1999, Keilis-Borok's group published a claim to have achieved statistically significant intermediate-term results using their M8 and MSc models, as far as world-wide large earthquakes are regarded. However, Geller et al. are skeptical of prediction claims over any period shorter than 30 years. A widely publicized TIP for an M 6.4 quake in Southern California in 2004 was not fulfilled, nor two other lesser known TIPs. A deep study of the RTP method in 2008 found that out of some twenty alarms only two could be considered hits (and one of those had a 60% chance of happening anyway). It concluded that "RTP is not significantly different from a naïve method of guessing based on the historical rates seismicity."

Accelerating moment release (AMR, "moment" being a measurement of seismic energy), also known as time-to-failure analysis, or accelerating seismic moment release (ASMR), is based on observations that foreshock activity prior to a major earthquake not only increased, but increased at an exponential rate. In other words, a plot of the cumulative number of foreshocks gets steeper just before the main shock.

Following formulation by Bowman et al. (1998) into a testable hypothesis, and a number of positive reports, AMR seemed promising despite several problems. Known issues included not being detected for all locations and events, and the difficulty of projecting an accurate occurrence time when the tail end of the curve gets steep. But rigorous testing has shown that apparent AMR trends likely result from how data fitting is done, and failing to account for spatiotemporal clustering of earthquakes. The AMR trends are therefore statistically insignificant. Interest in AMR (as judged by the number of peer-reviewed papers) has fallen off since 2004.

Machine learning

Rouet-Leduc et al. (2019) reported having successfully trained a regression random forest on acoustic time series data capable of identifying a signal emitted from fault zones that forecasts fault failure. Rouet-Leduc et al. (2019) suggested that the identified signal, previously assumed to be statistical noise, reflects the increasing emission of energy before its sudden release during a slip event. Rouet-Leduc et al. (2019) further postulated that their approach could bound fault failure times and lead to the identification of other unknown signals. Due to the rarity of the most catastrophic earthquakes, acquiring representative data remains problematic. In response, Rouet-Leduc et al. (2019) have conjectured that their model would not need to train on data from catastrophic earthquakes, since further research has shown the seismic patterns of interest to be similar in smaller earthquakes.

Deep learning has also been applied to earthquake prediction. Although Bath's law and Omori's law describe the magnitude of earthquake aftershocks and their time-varying properties, the prediction of the "spatial distribution of aftershocks" remains an open research problem. Using the Theano and TensorFlow software libraries, DeVries et al. (2018) trained a neural network that achieved higher accuracy in the prediction of spatial distributions of earthquake aftershocks than the previously established methodology of Coulomb failure stress change. Notably, DeVries et al. (2018) reported that their model made no "assumptions about receiver plane orientation or geometry" and heavily weighted the change in shear stress, "sum of the absolute values of the independent components of the stress-change tensor," and the von Mises yield criterion. DeVries et al. (2018) postulated that the reliance of their model on these physical quantities indicated that they might "control earthquake triggering during the most active part of the seismic cycle." For validation testing, DeVries et al. (2018) reserved 10% of positive training earthquake data samples and an equal quantity of randomly chosen negative samples.

Arnaud Mignan and Marco Broccardo have similarly analyzed the application of artificial neural networks to earthquake prediction. They found in a review of literature that earthquake prediction research utilizing artificial neural networks has gravitated towards more sophisticated models amidst increased interest in the area. They also found that neural networks utilized in earthquake prediction with notable success rates were matched in performance by simpler models. They further addressed the issues of acquiring appropriate data for training neural networks to predict earthquakes, writing that the "structured, tabulated nature of earthquake catalogues" makes transparent machine learning models more desirable than artificial neural networks.

EMP induced seismicity

High energy electromagnetic pulses can induce earthquakes within 2–6 days after the emission by EMP generators. It has been proposed that strong EM impacts could control seismicity, as the seismicity dynamics that follow appear to be a lot more regular than usual.

Notable predictions

These are predictions, or claims of predictions, that are notable either scientifically or because of public notoriety, and claim a scientific or quasi-scientific basis. As many predictions are held confidentially, or published in obscure locations, and become notable only when they are claimed, there may be a selection bias in that hits get more attention than misses. The predictions listed here are discussed in Hough's book and Geller's paper.

1975: Haicheng, China

The M 7.3 1975 Haicheng earthquake is the most widely cited "success" of earthquake prediction. The ostensible story is that study of seismic activity in the region led the Chinese authorities to issue a medium-term prediction in June 1974, and the political authorities therefore ordered various measures taken, including enforced evacuation of homes, construction of "simple outdoor structures", and showing of movies out-of-doors. The quake, striking at 19:36, was powerful enough to destroy or badly damage about half of the homes. However, the "effective preventative measures taken" were said to have kept the death toll under 300 in an area with population of about 1.6 million, where otherwise tens of thousands of fatalities might have been expected.

However, although a major earthquake occurred, there has been some skepticism about the narrative of measures taken on the basis of a timely prediction. This event occurred during the Cultural Revolution, when "belief in earthquake prediction was made an element of ideological orthodoxy that distinguished the true party liners from right wing deviationists". Recordkeeping was disordered, making it difficult to verify details, including whether there was any ordered evacuation. The method used for either the medium-term or short-term predictions (other than "Chairman Mao's revolutionary line") has not been specified. The evacuation may have been spontaneous, following the strong (M 4.7) foreshock that occurred the day before.

A 2006 study that had access to an extensive range of records found that the predictions were flawed. "In particular, there was no official short-term prediction, although such a prediction was made by individual scientists." Also: "it was the foreshocks alone that triggered the final decisions of warning and evacuation". They estimated that 2,041 lives were lost. That more did not die was attributed to a number of fortuitous circumstances, including earthquake education in the previous months (prompted by elevated seismic activity), local initiative, timing (occurring when people were neither working nor asleep), and local style of construction. The authors conclude that, while unsatisfactory as a prediction, "it was an attempt to predict a major earthquake that for the first time did not end up with practical failure."

Further information: 1975 Haicheng earthquake

1981: Lima, Peru (Brady)

In 1976, Brian Brady, a physicist, then at the U.S. Bureau of Mines, where he had studied how rocks fracture, "concluded a series of four articles on the theory of earthquakes with the deduction that strain building in the subduction zone might result in an earthquake of large magnitude within a period of seven to fourteen years from mid November 1974." In an internal memo written in June 1978 he narrowed the time window to "October to November, 1981", with a main shock in the range of 9.2±0.2. In a 1980 memo he was reported as specifying "mid-September 1980". This was discussed at a scientific seminar in San Juan, Argentina, in October 1980, where Brady's colleague, W. Spence, presented a paper. Brady and Spence then met with government officials from the U.S. and Peru on 29 October, and "forecast a series of large magnitude earthquakes in the second half of 1981." This prediction became widely known in Peru, following what the U.S. embassy described as "sensational first page headlines carried in most Lima dailies" on January 26, 1981.

On 27 January 1981, after reviewing the Brady-Spence prediction, the U.S. National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) announced it was "unconvinced of the scientific validity" of the prediction, and had been "shown nothing in the observed seismicity data, or in the theory insofar as presented, that lends substance to the predicted times, locations, and magnitudes of the earthquakes." It went on to say that while there was a probability of major earthquakes at the predicted times, that probability was low, and recommend that "the prediction not be given serious consideration."

Unfazed, Brady subsequently revised his forecast, stating there would be at least three earthquakes on or about July 6, August 18 and September 24, 1981, leading one USGS official to complain: "If he is allowed to continue to play this game ... he will eventually get a hit and his theories will be considered valid by many."

On June 28 (the date most widely taken as the date of the first predicted earthquake), it was reported that: "the population of Lima passed a quiet Sunday". The headline on one Peruvian newspaper: "NO PASÓ NADA" ("Nothing happened").

In July Brady formally withdrew his prediction on the grounds that prerequisite seismic activity had not occurred. Economic losses due to reduced tourism during this episode has been roughly estimated at one hundred million dollars.

1985–1993: Parkfield, U.S. (Bakun-Lindh)

The "Parkfield earthquake prediction experiment" was the most heralded scientific earthquake prediction ever. It was based on an observation that the Parkfield segment of the San Andreas Fault breaks regularly with a moderate earthquake of about M 6 every several decades: 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966. More particularly, Bakun & Lindh (1985) pointed out that, if the 1934 quake is excluded, these occur every 22 years, ±4.3 years. Counting from 1966, they predicted a 95% chance that the next earthquake would hit around 1988, or 1993 at the latest. The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) evaluated this, and concurred. The U.S. Geological Survey and the State of California therefore established one of the "most sophisticated and densest nets of monitoring instruments in the world", in part to identify any precursors when the quake came. Confidence was high enough that detailed plans were made for alerting emergency authorities if there were signs an earthquake was imminent. In the words of The Economist: "never has an ambush been more carefully laid for such an event."

Year 1993 came, and passed, without fulfillment. Eventually there was an M 6.0 earthquake on the Parkfield segment of the fault, on 28 September 2004, but without forewarning or obvious precursors. While the experiment in catching an earthquake is considered by many scientists to have been successful, the prediction was unsuccessful in that the eventual event was a decade late.

Further information: Parkfield earthquake

1983–1995: Greece (VAN)

In 1981, the "VAN" group, headed by Panayiotis Varotsos, said that they found a relationship between earthquakes and 'seismic electric signals' (SES). In 1984 they presented a table of 23 earthquakes from 19 January 1983 to 19 September 1983, of which they claimed to have successfully predicted 18 earthquakes. Other lists followed, such as their 1991 claim of predicting six out of seven earthquakes with M_s  ≥ 5.5 in the period of 1 April 1987 through 10 August 1989, or five out of seven earthquakes with M_s  ≥ 5.3 in the overlapping period of 15 May 1988 to 10 August 1989, In 1996 they published a "Summary of all Predictions issued from January 1st, 1987 to June 15, 1995", amounting to 94 predictions. Matching this against a list of "All earthquakes with M_S(ATH)" and within geographical bounds including most of Greece, they come up with a list of 14 earthquakes they should have predicted. Here they claim ten successes, for a success rate of 70%.

The VAN predictions have been criticized on various grounds, including being geophysically implausible, "vague and ambiguous", failing to satisfy prediction criteria, and retroactive adjustment of parameters. A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters. The VAN predictions not only fail to do better than chance, but show "a much better association with the events which occurred before them", according to Mulargia and Gasperini. Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant. Both positive and negative views on VAN predictions from this period were summarized in the 1996 book A Critical Review of VAN edited by Sir James Lighthill and in a debate issue presented by the journal Geophysical Research Letters that was focused on the statistical significance of the VAN method. VAN had the opportunity to reply to their critics in those review publications. In 2011, the ICEF reviewed the 1996 debate, and concluded that the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by VAN could not be validated. In 2013, the SES activities were found to be coincident with the minima of the fluctuations of the order parameter of seismicity, which have been shown to be statistically significant precursors by employing the event coincidence analysis.

A crucial issue is the large and often indeterminate parameters of the predictions, such that some critics say these are not predictions, and should not be recognized as such. Much of the controversy with VAN arises from this failure to adequately specify these parameters. Some of their telegrams include predictions of two distinct earthquake events, such as (typically) one earthquake predicted at 300 km "NW" of Athens, and another at 240 km "W", "with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8", with no time limit. The time parameter estimation was introduced in VAN Method by means of natural time in 2001. VAN has disputed the 'pessimistic' conclusions of their critics, but the critics have not relented. It was suggested that VAN failed to account for clustering of earthquakes, or that they interpreted their data differently during periods of greater seismic activity.

VAN has been criticized on several occasions for causing public panic and widespread unrest. This has been exacerbated by the broadness of their predictions, which cover large areas of Greece (up to 240 kilometers across, and often pairs of areas), much larger than the areas actually affected by earthquakes of the magnitudes predicted (usually several tens of kilometers across). Magnitudes are similarly broad: a predicted magnitude of "6.0" represents a range from a benign magnitude 5.3 to a broadly destructive 6.7. Coupled with indeterminate time windows of a month or more, such predictions "cannot be practically utilized" to determine an appropriate level of preparedness, whether to curtail usual societal functioning, or even to issue public warnings.

2008: Greece (VAN)

After 2006, VAN claim that all alarms related to SES activity have been made public by posting at arxiv.org. Such SES activity is evaluated using a new method they call 'natural time'. One such report was posted on Feb. 1, 2008, two weeks before the strongest earthquake in Greece during the period 1983–2011. This earthquake occurred on February 14, 2008, with magnitude (Mw) 6.9. VAN's report was also described in an article in the newspaper Ethnos on Feb. 10, 2008. However, Gerassimos Papadopoulos commented that the VAN reports were confusing and ambiguous, and that "none of the claims for successful VAN predictions is justified." A reply to this comment, which insisted on the prediction's accuracy, was published in the same issue.

1989: Loma Prieta, U.S.

The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (epicenter in the Santa Cruz Mountains northwest of San Juan Bautista, California) caused significant damage in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reportedly claimed, twelve hours after the event, that it had "forecast" this earthquake in a report the previous year. USGS staff subsequently claimed this quake had been "anticipated"; various other claims of prediction have also been made.

Ruth Harris (Harris (1998)) reviewed 18 papers (with 26 forecasts) dating from 1910 "that variously offer or relate to scientific forecasts of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake." (In this case no distinction is made between a forecast, which is limited to a probabilistic estimate of an earthquake happening over some time period, and a more specific prediction.) None of these forecasts can be rigorously tested due to lack of specificity, and where a forecast does bracket the correct time and location, the window was so broad (e.g., covering the greater part of California for five years) as to lose any value as a prediction. Predictions that came close (but given a probability of only 30%) had ten- or twenty-year windows.

One debated prediction came from the M8 algorithm used by Keilis-Borok and associates in four forecasts. The first of these forecasts missed both magnitude (M 7.5) and time (a five-year window from 1 January 1984, to 31 December 1988). They did get the location, by including most of California and half of Nevada. A subsequent revision, presented to the NEPEC, extended the time window to 1 July 1992, and reduced the location to only central California; the magnitude remained the same. A figure they presented had two more revisions, for M ≥ 7.0 quakes in central California. The five-year time window for one ended in July 1989, and so missed the Loma Prieta event; the second revision extended to 1990, and so included Loma Prieta.

When discussing success or failure of prediction for the Loma Prieta earthquake, some scientists argue that it did not occur on the San Andreas Fault (the focus of most of the forecasts), and involved dip-slip (vertical) movement rather than strike-slip (horizontal) movement, and so was not predicted.

Other scientists argue that it did occur in the San Andreas Fault zone, and released much of the strain accumulated since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake; therefore several of the forecasts were correct. Hough states that "most seismologists" do not believe this quake was predicted "per se". In a strict sense there were no predictions, only forecasts, which were only partially successful.

Iben Browning claimed to have predicted the Loma Prieta event, but (as will be seen in the next section) this claim has been rejected.

Further information: 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake

1990: New Madrid, U.S. (Browning)

Further information: Tidal triggering of earthquakes

Iben Browning (a scientist with a Ph.D. degree in zoology and training as a biophysicist, but no experience in geology, geophysics, or seismology) was an "independent business consultant" who forecast long-term climate trends for businesses. He supported the idea (scientifically unproven) that volcanoes and earthquakes are more likely to be triggered when the tidal force of the Sun and the Moon coincide to exert maximum stress on the Earth's crust (syzygy). Having calculated when these tidal forces maximize, Browning then "projected" what areas were most at risk for a large earthquake. An area he mentioned frequently was the New Madrid seismic zone at the southeast corner of the state of Missouri, the site of three very large earthquakes in 1811–12, which he coupled with the date of 3 December 1990.

Browning's reputation and perceived credibility were boosted when he claimed in various promotional flyers and advertisements to have predicted (among various other events) the Loma Prieta earthquake of 17 October 1989. The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) formed an Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) to evaluate Browning's prediction. Its report (issued 18 October 1990) specifically rejected the claim of a successful prediction of the Loma Prieta earthquake. A transcript of his talk in San Francisco on 10 October showed he had said: "there will probably be several earthquakes around the world, Richter 6+, and there may be a volcano or two" – which, on a global scale, is about average for a week – with no mention of any earthquake in California.

Though the AHWG report disproved both Browning's claims of prior success and the basis of his "projection", it made little impact after a year of continued claims of a successful prediction. Browning's prediction received the support of geophysicist David Stewart, and the tacit endorsement of many public authorities in their preparations for a major disaster, all of which was amplified by massive exposure in the news media. Nothing happened on 3 December, and Browning died of a heart attack seven months later.

2004 and 2005: Southern California, U.S. (Keilis-Borok)

The M8 algorithm (developed under the leadership of Vladimir Keilis-Borok at UCLA) gained respect by the apparently successful predictions of the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes. Great interest was therefore generated by the prediction in early 2004 of a M ≥ 6.4 earthquake to occur somewhere within an area of southern California of approximately 12,000 sq. miles, on or before 5 September 2004. In evaluating this prediction the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (CEPEC) noted that this method had not yet made enough predictions for statistical validation, and was sensitive to input assumptions. It therefore concluded that no "special public policy actions" were warranted, though it reminded all Californians "of the significant seismic hazards throughout the state." The predicted earthquake did not occur.

A very similar prediction was made for an earthquake on or before 14 August 2005, in approximately the same area of southern California. The CEPEC's evaluation and recommendation were essentially the same, this time noting that the previous prediction and two others had not been fulfilled. This prediction also failed.

2009: L'Aquila, Italy (Giuliani)

Main article: 2009 L'Aquila earthquake

At 03:32 on 6 April 2009, the Abruzzo region of central Italy was rocked by a magnitude M 6.3 earthquake. In the city of L'Aquila and surrounding area around 60,000 buildings collapsed or were seriously damaged, resulting in 308 deaths and 67,500 people left homeless. Around the same time, it was reported that Giampaolo Giuliani had predicted the earthquake, had tried to warn the public, but had been muzzled by the Italian government.

Giampaolo Giuliani was a laboratory technician at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso. As a hobby he had for some years been monitoring radon using instruments he had designed and built. Prior to the L'Aquila earthquake he was unknown to the scientific community, and had not published any scientific work. He had been interviewed on 24 March by an Italian-language blog, Donne Democratiche, about a swarm of low-level earthquakes in the Abruzzo region that had started the previous December. He said that this swarm was normal and would diminish by the end of March. On 30 March, L'Aquila was struck by a magnitude 4.0 temblor, the largest to date.

On 27 March Giuliani warned the mayor of L'Aquila there could be an earthquake within 24 hours, and an earthquake M~2.3 occurred. On 29 March he made a second prediction. He telephoned the mayor of the town of Sulmona, about 55 kilometers southeast of L'Aquila, to expect a "damaging" – or even "catastrophic" – earthquake within 6 to 24 hours. Loudspeaker vans were used to warn the inhabitants of Sulmona to evacuate, with consequential panic. No quake ensued and Giuliano was cited for inciting public alarm and enjoined from making future public predictions.

After the L'Aquila event Giuliani claimed that he had found alarming rises in radon levels just hours before. He said he had warned relatives, friends and colleagues on the evening before the earthquake hit. He was subsequently interviewed by the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection, which found that Giuliani had not transmitted a valid prediction of the mainshock to the civil authorities before its occurrence.

Difficulty or impossibility

As the preceding examples show, the record of earthquake prediction has been disappointing. The optimism of the 1970s that routine prediction of earthquakes would be "soon", perhaps within ten years, was coming up disappointingly short by the 1990s, and many scientists began wondering why. By 1997 it was being positively stated that earthquakes can not be predicted, which led to a notable debate in 1999 on whether prediction of individual earthquakes is a realistic scientific goal.

Earthquake prediction may have failed only because it is "fiendishly difficult" and still beyond the current competency of science. Despite the confident announcement four decades ago that seismology was "on the verge" of making reliable predictions, there may yet be an underestimation of the difficulties. As early as 1978 it was reported that earthquake rupture might be complicated by "heterogeneous distribution of mechanical properties along the fault", and in 1986 that geometrical irregularities in the fault surface "appear to exert major controls on the starting and stopping of ruptures". Another study attributed significant differences in fault behavior to the maturity of the fault. These kinds of complexities are not reflected in current prediction methods.

Seismology may even yet lack an adequate grasp of its most central concept, elastic rebound theory. A simulation that explored assumptions regarding the distribution of slip found results "not in agreement with the classical view of the elastic rebound theory". (This was attributed to details of fault heterogeneity not accounted for in the theory.)

Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible. In 1997, it has been argued that the Earth is in a state of self-organized criticality "where any small earthquake has some probability of cascading into a large event". It has also been argued on decision-theoretic grounds that "prediction of major earthquakes is, in any practical sense, impossible." In 2021, a multitude of authors from a variety of universities and research institutes studying the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite reported that the claims based on self-organized criticality stating that at any moment any small earthquake can eventually cascade to a large event, do not stand in view of the results obtained to date by natural time analysis.

That earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed, but the best disproof of impossibility – effective earthquake prediction – has yet to be demonstrated.

See also

• Binary classification
• California earthquake forecast
• Classification rule
• Coordinating Committee for Earthquake Prediction, Japan
• Dowsing
• Earthquake engineering
• Earthquake sensitive
• Earthquake weather
• Forecasting
• National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
• Ring of Fire
• Seismo-electromagnetics
• Supermoon
• Type I and type II errors

Notes

1. Kagan (1997b, §2.1) says: "This definition has several defects which contribute to confusion and difficulty in prediction research." In addition to specification of time, location, and magnitude, Allen suggested three other requirements: 4) indication of the author's confidence in the prediction, 5) the chance of an earthquake occurring anyway as a random event, and 6) publication in a form that gives failures the same visibility as successes. Kagan & Knopoff (1987, p. 1563) define prediction (in part) "to be a formal rule where by the available space-time-seismic moment manifold of earthquake occurrence is significantly contracted …"
2. ICEF (2011, p. 327) distinguishes between predictions (as deterministic) and forecasts (as probabilistic).
3. However, Mileti & Sorensen (1990) have argued that the extent of panic related to public disaster forecasts, and the 'cry wolf' problem with respect to repeated false alarms, have both been overestimated, and can be mitigated through appropriate communications from the authorities.
4. The IASPEI Sub-Commission for Earthquake Prediction defined a precursor as "a quantitatively measurable change in an environmental parameter that occurs before mainshocks, and that is thought to be linked to the preparation process for this mainshock."
5. Subsequent diffusion of water back into the affected volume of rock is what leads to failure.
6. Giampaolo Giuiliani's claimed prediction of the L'Aquila earthquake was based on monitoring of radon levels.
7. Over time the claim was modified. See 1983–1995: Greece (VAN) for more details.
8. One enthusiastic supporter (Uyeda) was reported as saying "VAN is the biggest invention since the time of Archimedes".
9. A short overview of the debate can be found in an exchange of letters in the June 1998 issue of Physics Today.
10. For example the VAN "IOA" station was next to an antenna park, and the station at Pirgos, where most of the 1980s predictions were derived, was found to lie over the buried grounding grid of a military radio transmitter. VAN has not distinguished their "seismic electric signals" from artificial electromagnetic noise or from radio-telecommunication and industrial sources.
11. For example it has been shown that the VAN predictions are more likely to follow an earthquake than to precede one. It seems that where there have been recent shocks the VAN personnel are more likely to interpret the usual electrical variations as SES. The tendency for earthquakes to cluster then accounts for an increased chance of an earthquake in the rather broad prediction window. Other aspects of this will be discussed below.
12. The literature on geophysical phenomena and ionospheric disturbances uses the term ULF (Ultra Low Frequency) to describe the frequency band below 10 Hz. The band referred to as ULF on the Radio wave page corresponds to a different part of the spectrum frequency formerly referred to as VF (Voice Frequency). In this article the term ULF is listed as ULF*.
13. Evans (1997, §2.2) provides a description of the "self-organized criticality" (SOC) paradigm that is displacing the elastic rebound model.
14. These include the type of rock and fault geometry.
15. Of course these were not the only earthquakes in this period. The attentive reader will recall that, in seismically active areas, earthquakes of some magnitude happen fairly constantly. The "Parkfield earthquakes" are either the ones noted in the historical record, or were selected from the instrumental record on the basis of location and magnitude. Jackson & Kagan (2006, p. S399) and Kagan (1997, pp. 211–212, 213) argue that the selection parameters can bias the statistics, and that sequences of four or six quakes, with different recurrence intervals, are also plausible.
16. Young faults are expected to have complex, irregular surfaces, which impede slippage. In time these rough spots are ground off, changing the mechanical characteristics of the fault.
17. Measurement of an uplift has been claimed, but that was 185 km away, and likely surveyed by inexperienced amateurs.
18. According to Wang et al. (2006, p. 762) foreshocks were widely understood to precede a large earthquake, "which may explain why various made their own evacuation decisions".
19. The chairman of the NEPEC later complained to the Agency for International Development that one of its staff members had been instrumental in encouraging Brady and promulgating his prediction long after it had been scientifically discredited.
20. The most anticipated prediction ever is likely Iben Browning's 1990 New Madrid prediction, but it lacked any scientific basis.
21. Near the small town of Parkfield, California, roughly halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
22. It has also been argued that the actual quake differed from the kind expected, and that the prediction was no more significant than a simpler null hypothesis.
23. Varotsos & Lazaridou (1991) Table 2 (p. 340) and Table 3 (p. 341) includes nine predictions (unnumbered) from 27 April 1987 to 28 April 1988, with a tenth prediction issued on 26 February 1987 mentioned in a footnote. Two of these earthquakes were excluded from Table 3 on the grounds of having occurred in neighboring Albania. Table 1 (p. 333) includes 17 predictions (numbered) issued from 15 May 1988 to 23 July 1989. A footnote mentions a missed (unpredicted) earthquake on 19 March 1989; all 17 entries show associated earthquakes, and presumably are thereby deemed to have been successful predictions. Table 4 (p. 345) is a continuation of Table 1 (p. 346) out to 30 November 1989, adding five additional predictions with associated earthquakes.
24. "M_S(ATH)" is the M_S magnitude reported by the National Observatory of Athens (SI-NOA), or VAN's estimate of what that magnitude would be. These differ from the M_S magnitudes reported by the USGS.
25. Specifically, between 36° and 41° north latitude and 19° to 25° east longitude.
26. They have suggested the success rate should be higher, as one of the missed quakes would have been predicted but for attendance at a conference, and in another case a "clear SES" was recognized but a magnitude could not be determined for lack of operating stations.
27. This pair of predictions was issued on 9/1/1988, and a similar pair of predictions was re-iterated on 9/30/1988, except that the predicted amplitudes were reduced to M(l)=5.0 and 5.3, respectively. In fact, an earthquake did occur approximately 240 km west of Athens, on 10/16/1988, with magnitude Ms(ATH)=6.0, which would correspond to a local magnitude M(l) of 5.5.
28. While some analyses have been done on the basis of a 100 km range (e.g., Hamada 1993, p. 205), Varotsos & Lazaridou (1991, p. 339) claim credit for earthquakes within a radius of 120 km.
29. Geller (1996a, 6.4.2) notes that while Kobe was severely damaged by the 1995 M_w 6.9 earthquake, damage in Osaka, only 30 km away, was relatively light.
30. VAN predictions generally do not specify the magnitude scale or precision, but they have generally claimed a precision of ±0.7.
31. As an instance of the quandary public officials face: in 1995 Professor Varotsos reportedly filed a complaint with the public prosecutor accusing government officials of negligence in not responding to his supposed prediction of an earthquake. A government official was quoted as saying "VAN's prediction was not of any use" in that it covered two-thirds of the area of Greece.
32. Spence et al. 1993 (USGS Circular 1083) is the most comprehensive, and most thorough, study of the Browning prediction, and appears to be the main source of most other reports. In the following notes, where an item is found in this document the pdf pagination is shown in brackets.
33. A report on Browning's prediction cited over a dozen studies of possible tidal triggering of earthquakes, but concluded that "conclusive evidence of such a correlation has not been found". It also found that Browning's identification of a particular high tide as triggering a particular earthquake "difficult to justify".
34. Including "a 50/50 probability that the federal government of the U.S. will fall in 1992."
35. Previously involved in a psychic prediction of an earthquake for North Carolina in 1975, Stewart sent a 13 page memo to a number of colleagues extolling Browning's supposed accomplishments, including predicting Loma Prieta.
36. More mature faults presumably slip more readily because they have been ground smoother and flatter.
37. "Despite over a century of scientific effort, the understanding of earthquake predictability remains immature. This lack of understanding is reflected in the inability to predict large earthquakes in the deterministic short-term sense."

References

1. Geller et al. 1997, p. 1616, following Allen 1976, p. 2070, who in turn followed Wood & Gutenberg 1935.
2. Kagan 1997b, p. 507.
3. Kanamori 2003, p. 1205.
4. Geller et al. 1997, p. 1617; Geller 1997, p. 427, §2.3; Console 2001, p. 261.
5. ICEF 2011, p. 328; Jackson 2004, p. 344.
6. Wang et al. 2006.
7. Geller 1997, Summary.
8. Kagan 1997b; Geller 1997; Main 1999.
9. Mulargia & Gasperini 1992, p. 32; Luen & Stark 2008, p. 302.
10. Luen & Stark 2008; Console 2001.
11. Jackson 1996a, p. 3775.
12. Jones 1985, p. 1669.
13. Console 2001, p. 1261.
14. Luen & Stark 2008. This was based on data from Southern California.
15. Wade 1977.
16. Hall 2011; Cartlidge 2011. Additional details in Cartlidge 2012.
17. Geller 1997, p. 437, §5.2.
18. Atwood & Major 1998.
19. Saegusa 1999.
20. Mason 2003, p. 48 and throughout.
21. Stiros 1997.
22. Stiros 1997, p. 483.
23. Panel on Earthquake Prediction 1976, p. 9.
24. Uyeda, Nagao & Kamogawa 2009, p. 205; Hayakawa 2015.
25. Geller 1997, §3.1.
26. Geller 1997, p. 429, §3.
27. E.g., Claudius Aelianus, in De natura animalium, book 11, commenting on the destruction of Helike in 373 BC, but writing five centuries later.
28. Rikitake 1979, p. 294. Cicerone, Ebel & Britton 2009 has a more recent compilation
29. Jackson 2004, p. 335.
30. Geller 1997, p. 425. See also: Jackson 2004, p. 348: "The search for precursors has a checkered history, with no convincing successes." Zechar & Jordan 2008, p. 723: "The consistent failure to find reliable earthquake precursors...". ICEF 2009: "... no convincing evidence of diagnostic precursors."
31. Wyss & Booth 1997, p. 424.
32. ICEF 2011, p. 338.
33. ICEF 2011, p. 361.
34. Bolt 1993, pp. 30–32.
35. ^ "Animals & Earthquake Prediction | U.S. Geological Survey". United States Geological Survey.
36. ICEF 2011, p. 336; Lott, Hart & Howell 1981, p. 1204.
37. ^ https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/108/3A/1031/530275/Review-Can-Animals-Predict-Earthquakes-Review-Can?redirectedFrom=fulltext. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
38. ^ "Can Animals Predict Earthquakes? | Seismological Society of America". Seismological Society of America.
39. Lott, Hart & Howell 1981.
40. Brown & Kulik 1977.
41. Freund & Stolc 2013.
42. ^ Main et al. 2012, p. 215.
43. Main et al. 2012, p. 217.
44. Main et al. 2012, p. 215; Hammond 1973.
45. ^ Hammond 1974.
46. Scholz, Sykes & Aggarwal 1973, quoted by Hammond 1973.
47. ICEF 2011, pp. 333–334; McEvilly & Johnson 1974; Lindh, Lockner & Lee 1978.
48. Main et al. 2012, p. 226.
49. Main et al. 2012, pp. 220–221, 226; see also Lindh, Lockner & Lee 1978.
50. ^ Hough 2010b.
51. Hammond 1973. Additional references in Geller 1997, §2.4.
52. ^ Scholz, Sykes & Aggarwal 1973.
53. Aggarwal et al. 1975.
54. Hough 2010b, p. 110.
55. Allen 1983, p. 79; Whitcomb 1977.
56. McEvilly & Johnson 1974.
57. Lindh, Lockner & Lee 1978.
58. ICEF 2011, p. 333.
59. Cicerone, Ebel & Britton 2009, p. 382.
60. ICEF 2011, p. 334; Hough 2010b, pp. 93–95.
61. Johnston 2002, p. 621.
62. Park 1996, p. 493.
63. See Geller 1996a and Geller 1996b for some history of these hopes.
64. ICEF 2011, p. 335.
65. Park, Dalrymple & Larsen 2007, paragraphs 1 and 32. See also Johnston et al. 2006, p. S218 "no VAN-type SES observed" and Kappler, Morrison & Egbert 2010 "no effects found that can be reasonably characterized as precursors".
66. ICEF 2011, p. 335, Summary.
67. Varotsos, Alexopoulos & Nomicos 1981, described by Mulargia & Gasperini 1992, p. 32, and Kagan 1997b, p. 512, §3.3.1.
68. Varotsos & Alexopoulos 1984b, p. 100.
69. Varotsos & Alexopoulos 1984b, p. 120. Italicization from the original.
70. Varotsos & Alexopoulos 1984b, p. 117, Table 3; Varotsos et al. 1986; Varotsos & Lazaridou 1991, p. 341, Table 3; Varotsos et al. 1996a, p. 55, Table 3. These are examined in more detail in 1983–1995: Greece (VAN).
71. Chouliaras & Stavrakakis 1999, p. 223.
72. Mulargia & Gasperini 1992, p. 32.
73. Geller 1996b; "Table of contents". Geophysical Research Letters. 23 (11). 27 May 1996. doi:10.1002/grl.v23.11.
74. The proceedings were published as A Critical Review of VAN (Lighthill 1996). See Jackson & Kagan (1998) for a summary critique.
75. Geller et al. 1998; Anagnostopoulos 1998.
76. Mulargia & Gasperini 1996a, p. 1324; Jackson 1996b, p. 1365; Jackson & Kagan 1998; Stiros 1997, p. 478.
77. Drakopoulos, Stavrakakis & Latoussakis 1993, pp. 223, 236; Stavrakakis & Drakopoulos 1996; Wyss 1996, p. 1301.
78. Jackson 1996b, p. 1365; Gruszow et al. 1996, p. 2027.
79. Gruszow et al. 1996, p. 2025.
80. Chouliaras & Stavrakakis 1999; Pham et al. 1998, pp. 2025, 2028; Pham et al. 1999.
81. Pham et al. 2002.
82. Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2003a
83. Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2003b
84. Stiros 1997, p. 481.
85. ^ ICEF 2011, pp. 335–336.
86. Hough 2010b, p. 195.
87. ^ Uyeda, Nagao & Kamogawa 2011
88. Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2002; Varotsos 2006.; Rundle et al. 2012.
89. Huang 2015.
90. ^ Helman 2020
91. Sarlis et al. 2020
92. Hough 2010, pp. 131–133; Thomas, Love & Johnston 2009.
93. Fraser-Smith et al. 1990, p. 1467 called it "encouraging".
94. Campbell 2009.
95. Thomas, Love & Johnston 2009.
96. Freund 2000.
97. Hough 2010b, pp. 133–135.
98. Heraud, Centa & Bleier 2015.
99. Enriquez 2015.
100. Hough 2010b, pp. 137–139.
101. Freund, Takeuchi & Lau 2006.
102. Freund & Sornette 2007.
103. Freund et al. 2009.
104. Eftaxias et al. 2009.
105. Eftaxias et al. 2010.
106. Tsolis & Xenos 2010.
107. Rozhnoi et al. 2009.
108. Biagi et al. 2011.
109. Politis, Potirakis & Hayakawa 2020
110. Thomas, JN; Huard, J; Masci, F (2017). "Thomas, J. N., Huard, J., & Masci, F. (2017). A statistical study of global ionospheric map total electron content changes prior to occurrences of M≥ 6.0 earthquakes during 2000–2014". Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 122 (2): 2151–2161. doi:10.1002/2016JA023652. S2CID 132455032.
111. Andrén, Margareta; Stockmann, Gabrielle; Skelton, Alasdair (2016). "Coupling between mineral reactions, chemical changes in groundwater, and earthquakes in Iceland". Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 121 (4): 2315–2337. Bibcode:2016JGRB..121.2315A. doi:10.1002/2015JB012614. S2CID 131535687.
112. Filizzola et al. 2004.
113. Lisi et al. 2010.
114. Pergola et al. 2010.
115. Genzano et al. 2009.
116. Freund 2010.
117. ^ Rundle et al. 2016
118. Rundle et al. 2019
119. Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2001
120. ^ Rundle et al. 2018b
121. ^ Luginbuhl, Rundle & Turcotte 2019
122. Pasari 2019
123. Rundle et al. 2020
124. Luginbuhl et al. 2018
125. Luginbuhl, Rundle & Turcotte 2018b
126. Luginbuhl, Rundle & Turcotte 2018a
127. Reid 1910, p. 22; ICEF 2011, p. 329.
128. Wells & Coppersmith 1994, p. 993, Fig. 11.
129. Zoback 2006 provides a clear explanation.
130. Castellaro 2003.
131. Schwartz & Coppersmith 1984; Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, p. 93, §2.2.
132. Field et al. 2008.
133. Bakun & Lindh 1985, p. 619.
134. Bakun & Lindh 1985, p. 621.
135. Jackson & Kagan 2006, p. S408 say the claim of quasi-periodicity is "baseless".
136. ^ Jackson & Kagan 2006.
137. Kagan & Jackson 1991, pp. 21, 420; Stein, Friedrich & Newman 2005; Jackson & Kagan 2006; Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, §2.2, and references there; Kagan, Jackson & Geller 2012; Main 1999.
138. Cowan, Nicol & Tonkin 1996; Stein & Newman 2004, p. 185.
139. Stein & Newman 2004.
140. Scholz 2002, p. 284, §5.3.3; Kagan & Jackson 1991, pp. 21, 419; Jackson & Kagan 2006, p. S404.
141. Kagan & Jackson 1991, pp. 21, 419; McCann et al. 1979; Rong, Jackson & Kagan 2003.
142. Lomnitz & Nava 1983.
143. Rong, Jackson & Kagan 2003, p. 23.
144. Kagan & Jackson 1991, Summary.
145. See details in Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, §2.4.
146. ^ CEPEC 2004a.
147. Kossobokov et al. 1999.
148. ^ Geller et al. 1997.
149. Hough 2010b, pp. 142–149.
150. Zechar 2008; Hough 2010b, p. 145.
151. Zechar 2008, p. 7. See also p. 26.
152. Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, §2.1. Hough 2010b, chapter 12, provides a good description.
153. Hardebeck, Felzer & Michael 2008, par. 6.
154. Hough 2010b, pp. 154–155.
155. Tiampo & Shcherbakov 2012, p. 93, §2.1.
156. Hardebeck, Felzer & Michael 2008, §4 show how suitable selection of parameters shows "DMR": Decelerating Moment Release.
157. Hardebeck, Felzer & Michael 2008, par. 1, 73.
158. Mignan 2011, Abstract.
159. Rouet-Leduc et al. 2017.
160. Smart, Ashley (19 September 2019). "Artificial Intelligence Takes on Earthquake Prediction". Quanta Magazine. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
161. DeVries et al. 2018.
162. Mignan & Broccardo 2019.
163. Tarasov & Tarasova 2009
164. Novikov et al. 2017
165. Zeigarnik et al. 2007
166. Geller 1997, §4.
167. E.g.: Davies 1975; Whitham et al. 1976, p. 265; Hammond 1976; Ward 1978; Kerr 1979, p. 543; Allen 1982, p. S332; Rikitake 1982; Zoback 1983; Ludwin 2001; Jackson 2004, pp. 335, 344; ICEF 2011, p. 328.
168. Whitham et al. (1976, p. 266) provide a brief report. Raleigh et al. (1977) has a fuller account. Wang et al. (2006, p. 779), after careful examination of the records, set the death toll at 2,041.
169. Raleigh et al. 1977, p. 266, quoted in Geller (1997, p. 434). Geller has a whole section (§4.1) of discussion and many sources. See also Kanamori 2003, pp. 1210–11.
170. Quoted in Geller (1997, p. 434). Lomnitz (1994, Ch. 2) describes some of circumstances attending to the practice of seismology at that time; Turner 1993, pp. 456–458 has additional observations.
171. Jackson 2004, p. 345.
172. Kanamori 2003, p. 1211.
173. ^ Wang et al. 2006, p. 785.
174. ^ Roberts 1983, p. 151, §4.
175. Hough 2010, p. 114.
176. Gersony 1982, p. 231.
177. Gersony 1982, p. 247, document 85.
178. Gersony 1982, p. 248, document 86; Roberts 1983, p. 151.
179. Gersony 1982, p. 201, document 146.
180. Gersony 1982, p. 343, document 116; Roberts 1983, p. 152.
181. John Filson, deputy chief of the USGS Office of Earthquake Studies, quoted by Hough (2010, p. 116).
182. Gersony 1982, p. 422, document 147, U.S. State Dept. cablegram.
183. Hough 2010, p. 117.
184. Gersony 1982, p. 416; Kerr 1981.
185. Giesecke 1983, p. 68.
186. Geller (1997, §6) describes some of the coverage.
187. Bakun & McEvilly 1979; Bakun & Lindh 1985; Kerr 1984.
188. Bakun et al. 1987.
189. Kerr 1984, "How to Catch an Earthquake"; Roeloffs & Langbein 1994.
190. Roeloffs & Langbein 1994, p. 316.
191. Quoted by Geller 1997, p. 440.
192. Kerr 2004; Bakun et al. 2005, Harris & Arrowsmith 2006, p. S5.
193. Hough 2010b, p. 52.
194. Kagan 1997.
195. Varotsos & Alexopoulos 1984b, p. 117, Table 3.
196. Varotsos et al. 1996a, Table 1.
197. Jackson & Kagan 1998.
198. ^ Varotsos et al. 1996a, p. 55, Table 3.
199. ^ Varotsos et al. 1996a, p. 49.
200. Varotsos et al. 1996a, p. 56.
201. Jackson 1996b, p. 1365; Mulargia & Gasperini 1996a, p. 1324.
202. Geller 1997, p. 436, §4.5: "VAN's 'predictions' never specify the windows, and never state an unambiguous expiration date. Thus VAN are not making earthquake predictions in the first place."
203. Jackson 1996b, p. 1363. Also: Rhoades & Evison (1996, p. 1373): No one "can confidently state, except in the most general terms, what the VAN hypothesis is, because the authors of it have nowhere presented a thorough formulation of it."
204. ^ Kagan & Jackson 1996, p. 1434.
205. Geller 1997, p. 436, Table 1.
206. Mulargia & Gasperini 1992, p. 37.
207. Hamada 1993 10 successful predictions out of 12 issued (defining success as those that occurred within 22 days of the prediction, within 100 km of the predicted epicenter and with a magnitude difference (predicted minus true) not greater than 0.7.)
208. Shnirman, Schreider & Dmitrieva 1993; Nishizawa et al. 1993 and Uyeda 1991
209. Lighthill 1996.
210. "Table of contents". Geophysical Research Letters. 23 (11). 27 May 1996. doi:10.1002/grl.v23.11.; Aceves, Park & Strauss 1996.
211. Varotsos & Lazaridou 1996b; Varotsos, Eftaxias & Lazaridou 1996.
212. Varotsos et al. 2013
213. Christopoulos, Skordas & Sarlis 2020
214. Donges et al. 2016
215. Mulargia & Gasperini 1992, p. 32; Geller 1996a, p. 184 ("ranges not given, or vague"); Mulargia & Gasperini 1992, p. 32 ("large indetermination in the parameters"); Rhoades & Evison 1996, p. 1372 ("falls short"); Jackson 1996b, p. 1364 ("have never been fully specified"); Jackson & Kagan 1998, p. 573 ("much too vague"); Wyss & Allmann 1996, p. 1307 ("parameters not defined"). Stavrakakis & Drakopoulos (1996) discuss some specific cases in detail.
216. Geller 1997, p. 436. Geller (1996a, pp. 183–189, §6) discusses this at length.
217. Telegram 39, issued 1 September 1988, in Varotsos & Lazaridou 1991, p. 337, Fig. 21. See figure 26 (p. 344) for a similar telegram. See also telegrams 32 and 41 (figures 15 and 16, pp. 115-116) in Varotsos & Alexopoulos 1984b. This same pair of predictions is apparently presented as Telegram 10 in Table 1, p. 50, of Varotsos et al. 1996a. Text from several telegrams is presented in Table 2 (p. 54), and faxes of a similar character.
218. Varotsos et al. (1996a) they also cite Hamada's claim of a 99.8% confidence level. Geller (1996a, p. 214) finds that this "was based on the premise that 6 out of 12 telegrams" were in fact successful predictions, which is questioned. Kagan (1996, p. 1315) finds that in Shnirman et al. "several variables ... have been modified to achieve the result." Geller et al. (1998, p. 98) mention other "flaws such as overly generous crediting of successes, using strawman null hypotheses and failing to account for properly for a posteriori "tuning" of parameters."
219. Kagan 1996, p. 1318.
220. GR Reporter (2011) "From its very appearance in the early 1990s until today, the VAN group is the subject of sharp criticism from Greek seismologists"; Chouliaras & Stavrakakis (1999): "panic overtook the general population" (Prigos, 1993). Ohshansky & Geller (2003, p. 318): "causing widespread unrest and a sharp increase in tranquilizer drugs" (Athens, 1999). Papadopoulos (2010): "great social uneasiness" (Patras, 2008). Anagnostopoulos (1998, p. 96): "often caused widespread rumors, confusion and anxiety in Greece". ICEF (2011, p. 352): issuance over the years of "hundreds" of statements "causing considerable concern among the Greek population."
221. Stiros 1997, p. 482.
222. Varotsos et al. 1996a, pp. 36, 60, 72.
223. Anagnostopoulos 1998.
224. Geller 1996a, p. 223.
225. Apostolidis 2008; Uyeda & Kamogawa 2008; Chouliaras 2009; Uyeda 2010.
226. Papadopoulos 2010.
227. Uyeda & Kamogawa 2010
228. Harris 1998, p. B18.
229. Garwin 1989.
230. USGS staff 1990, p. 247.
231. Kerr 1989; Harris 1998.
232. e.g., ICEF 2011, p. 327.
233. Harris 1998, p. B22.
234. Harris 1998, p. B5, Table 1.
235. Harris 1998, pp. B10–B11.
236. Harris 1998, p. B10, and figure 4, p. B12.
237. Harris 1998, p. B11, figure 5.
238. Geller (1997, §4.4) cites several authors to say "it seems unreasonable to cite the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake as having fulfilled forecasts of a right-lateral strike-slip earthquake on the San Andreas Fault."
239. Harris 1998, pp. B21–B22.
240. Hough 2010b, p. 143.
241. AHWG 1990, p. 10 (Spence et al. 1993, p. 54 ).
242. Spence et al. 1993, footnote, p. 4 "Browning preferred the term projection, which he defined as determining the time of a future event based on calculation. He considered 'prediction' to be akin to tea-leaf reading or other forms of psychic foretelling." See also Browning's own comment on p. 36 .
243. Spence et al. 1993, p. 39 .
244. Spence et al. 1993, pp. 9–11 , and see various documents in Appendix A, including The Browning Newsletter for 21 November 1989 (p. 26 ).
245. AHWG 1990, p. III (Spence et al. 1993, p. 47 ).
246. AHWG 1990, p. 30 (Spence et al. 1993, p. 64 ).
247. Spence et al. 1993, p. 13
248. Spence et al. 1993, p. 29 .
249. Spence et al. 1993, throughout.
250. Tierney 1993, p. 11.
251. Spence et al. 1993, pp. 4 , 40 .
252. CEPEC 2004a; Hough 2010b, pp. 145–146.
253. CEPEC 2004b.
254. ICEF 2011, p. 320.
255. Alexander 2010, p. 326.
256. Squires & Rayne 2009; McIntyre 2009.
257. Hall 2011, p. 267.
258. Kerr 2009.
259. Dollar 2010.
260. ICEF (2011, p. 323) alludes to predictions made on 17 February and 10 March.
261. Kerr 2009; Hall 2011, p. 267; Alexander 2010, p. 330.
262. Kerr 2009; Squires & Rayne 2009.
263. Dollar 2010; Kerr 2009.
264. ICEF 2011, pp. 323, 335.
265. Geller 1997 found "no obvious successes".
266. Panel on Earthquake Prediction 1976, p. 2.
267. Kagan 1997b, p. 505 "The results of efforts to develop earthquake prediction methods over the last 30 years have been disappointing: after many monographs and conferences and thousands of papers we are no closer to a working forecast than we were in the 1960s".
268. Main 1999.
269. Geller et al. 1997, p. 1617.
270. Kanamori & Stewart 1978, abstract.
271. Sibson 1986.
272. Cowan, Nicol & Tonkin 1996.
273. Schwartz & Coppersmith (1984, pp. 5696–7) argued that the characteristics of fault rupture on a given fault "can be considered essentially constant through several seismic cycles". The expectation of a regular rate of occurrence that accounts for all other factors was rather disappointed by the lateness of the Parkfield earthquake.
274. Ziv, Cochard & Schmittbuhl 2007.
275. Geller et al. 1997, p. 1616; Kagan 1997b, p. 517. See also Kagan 1997b, p. 520, Vidale 1996 and especially Geller 1997, §9.1, "Chaos, SOC, and predictability".
276. Matthews 1997.
277. Martucci et al. 2021
278. Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2020
279. E.g., Sykes, Shaw & Scholz 1999 and Evison 1999.
280. ICEF 2011, p. 360.

Sources

• Aceves, Richard L.; Park, Stephen K.; Strauss, David J. (27 May 1996), "Statistical evaluation of the VAN Method using the historic earthquake catalog in Greece", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1425–1428, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1425A, doi:10.1029/96GL01478, ISSN 1944-8007.
• The Ad Hoc Working Group on the December 2–3, 1990, Earthquake Prediction [AHWG] (18 October 1990), Evaluation of the December 2–3, 1990, New Madrid Seismic Zone Prediction. Reproduced in Spence et al. (1993), pp. 45–66 , Appendix B.
• Aggarwal, Yash P.; Sykes, Lynn R.; Simpson, David W.; Richards, Paul G. (10 February 1975), "Spatial and Temporal Variations in t_s/t_p and in P Wave Residuals at Blue Mountain Lake, New York: Application to Earthquake Prediction", Journal of Geophysical Research, 80 (5): 718–732, Bibcode:1975JGR....80..718A, doi:10.1029/JB080i005p00718.

• Alexander, David E. (2010), "The L'Aquila Earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian Government Policy on Disaster Response", Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2 (4): 325–342, Bibcode:2010JNRPR...2..325A, doi:10.1080/19390459.2010.511450, S2CID 153641723.

• Allen, Clarence R. (December 1976), "Responsibilities in earthquake prediction", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 66 (6): 2069–2074, Bibcode:1976BuSSA..66.2069A, doi:10.1785/BSSA0660062069.

• Allen, Clarence R. (December 1982), "Earthquake Prediction – 1982 Overview", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 72 (6B): S331–S335, Bibcode:1982BuSSA..72S.331A, doi:10.1785/BSSA07206B0331.

• Allen, Clarence R. (1983). "The Southern California Earthquake Prediction of 1976: A Prediction Unfulfilled" (PDF). Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories. Geneva, 12–15 October 1982. UNDRO. pp. 77–82.

• Anagnostopoulos, Stavros A. (June 1998), "Letter" (PDF), Physics Today, 51 (6): 96, Bibcode:1998PhT....51f..15S, doi:10.1063/1.882266, archived from the original (PDF) on 23 March 2014.

• Apostolidis, C. (10 February 2008), "Problepsi gia seismo 6 rixter", Ethnos (in Greek), Pegasus Publishing, archived from the original on 15 July 2016, retrieved 16 July 2016.

• Atwood, L. Erwin; Major, Ann Marie (November 1998), "Exploring the "Cry Wolf" Hypothesis", International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 16 (3): 279–302, doi:10.1177/028072709801600303, S2CID 111790086.

• Bakun, W. H.; Aagaard, B.; Dost, B.; Ellsworth, W. L.; Hardebeck, J. L.; Harris, R. A.; Ji, C.; Johnston, M. J. S.; Langbein, J.; Lienkaemper, J. J.; Michael, A. J.; Murray, J. R.; Nadeau, R. M.; Reasenberg, P. A.; Reichle, M. S.; Roeloffs, E. A.; Shakal, A.; Simpson, R. W.; Simpson, R. W.; Waldhauser, F. (13 October 2005), "Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake", Nature, 437 (7061): 969–974, Bibcode:2005Natur.437..969B, doi:10.1038/nature04067, PMID 16222291, S2CID 4389712.

• Bakun, W.H.; Breckenridge, K.S.; Bredehoeft, J.; Burford, R.O.; Ellsworth, W.L.; Johnston, M.J.S.; Jones, L.; Lindh, A.G.; Mortensen, C.; Mueller, R. J.; Poley, C. M.; Roeloffs, E.; Schulz, S.; Segall, P.; Thatcher, W. (1 May 1987). Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Scenarios and Response Plans (PDF) (Report). United States Geological Survey. Open-File Report 87-192.

• Bakun, W. H.; Lindh, A. G. (16 August 1985), "The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Experiment", Science, 229 (4714): 619–624, Bibcode:1985Sci...229..619B, doi:10.1126/science.229.4714.619, PMID 17739363, S2CID 40899434.

• Bakun, W. H.; McEvilly, T. V. (28 September 1979), "Earthquakes near Parkfield, California: Comparing the 1934 and 1966 Sequences", Science, 205 (4413): 1375–1377, Bibcode:1979Sci...205.1375B, doi:10.1126/science.205.4413.1375, PMID 17732330, S2CID 28922627.

• Bernard, P. (10 November 1992), "Plausibility of long distance electrotelluric precursors to earthquakes", Journal of Geophysical Research, 97 (B12): 17531–17546, Bibcode:1992JGR....9717531B, doi:10.1029/92JB01215.

• Bernard, P.; LeMouel, J. L. (1996), "On electrotelluric signals", A critical review of VAN, London: Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific, pp. 118–154.

• Biagi, P. F.; Maggipinto, T.; Righetti, F.; Loiacono, D.; Schiavulli, L.; Ligonzo, T.; Ermini, A.; Moldovan, I. A.; Moldovan, A. S.; Buyuksarac, A.; Silva, H. G. (7 February 2011), "The European VLF/LF radio network to search for earthquake precursors: setting up and natural/man-made disturbances", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11 (2): 333–341, Bibcode:2011NHESS..11..333B, doi:10.5194/nhess-11-333-2011, hdl:10174/4717, ISSN 1561-8633

• Bolt, Bruce A. (1993), Earthquakes and geological discovery, Scientific American Library, ISBN 0-7167-5040-6.

• Bowman, D. D.; Quillon, G.; Sammis, C. G.; Sornette, A.; Sornette, D. (10 October 1998), "An observational test of the critical earthquake concept" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 103 (10): 24, 359–24, 372, arXiv:cond-mat/9803204, Bibcode:1998JGR...10324359B, doi:10.1029/98jb00792, S2CID 118922519.

• Brown, Roger; Kulik, James (1977), "Flashbulb memories", Cognition, 5 (1): 73–99, doi:10.1016/0010-0277(77)90018-X, S2CID 53195074.

• California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (2 March 2004a), Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 29 April 2013.

• California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (9 December 2004b), Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services.

• Campbell, W. H. (May 2009), "Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors, preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake", Journal of Geophysical Research, 114 (A5): A05307, Bibcode:2009JGRA..114.5307C, doi:10.1029/2008JA013932, S2CID 18246478.

• Cartlidge, Edwin (3 June 2011), "Quake Experts to Be Tried For Manslaughter", Science, 332 (6034): 1135–1136, Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1135C, doi:10.1126/science.332.6034.1135, PMID 21636750.

• Cartlidge, Edwin (12 October 2012), "Aftershocks in the Courtroom", Science, 338 (6104): 184–188, Bibcode:2012Sci...338..184C, doi:10.1126/science.338.6104.184, PMID 23066054.

• Castellaro, S. (2003), "§2.4.3. The classical earthquake model", in Mulargia, Francesco; Geller, Robert J. (eds.), Earthquake science and seismic risk reduction, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 56–57, ISBN 978-1-4020-1778-0.

• Christopoulos, Stavros-Richard G.; Skordas, Efthimios S.; Sarlis, Nicholas V. (17 January 2020), "On the Statistical Significance of the Variability Minima of the Order Parameter of Seismicity by Means of Event Coincidence Analysis", Applied Sciences, 10 (2): 662, doi:10.3390/app10020662, ISSN 2076-3417

• Chouliaras, G.; Stavrakakis, G. (1999), "Support for VAN's earthquake predictions is based on false statements." (PDF), Eos Trans. AGU, 80 (19): 216, Bibcode:1999EOSTr..80..216C, doi:10.1029/99EO00166.

• Chouliaras, G. (2009), "Seismicity anomalies prior to 8 June 2008 earthquake in Western Greece", Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9: 327–335, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-327-2009.

• Cicerone, Robert D.; Ebel, John E.; Britton, James (25 October 2009), "A systematic compilation of earthquake precursors" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 476 (3–4): 371–396, Bibcode:2009Tectp.476..371C, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2009.06.008.

• Cannavò, Flavio; Arena, Alessandra; Monaco, Carmelo (2015), "Local geodetic and seismic energy balance for shallow earthquake prediction", Journal of Seismology, 19 (1): 1–8, Bibcode:2015JSeis..19....1C, doi:10.1007/s10950-014-9446-z, S2CID 129258518.

• Console, R. (30 August 2001), "Testing earthquake forecast hypotheses", Tectonophysics, 338 (3–4): 261–268, Bibcode:2001Tectp.338..261C, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00081-6.

• Cowan, Hugh; Nicol, Andrew; Tonkin, Philip (10 March 1996), "A comparison of historical and paleoseismicity in a newly formed fault zone and a mature fault zone, North Canterbury, New Zealand", Journal of Geophysical Research, 101 (B3): 6021–6036, Bibcode:1996JGR...101.6021C, doi:10.1029/95JB01588, hdl:10182/3334.

• Davies, D. (27 November 1975), "Earthquake prediction in China", Nature, 258 (5533): 286–287, Bibcode:1975Natur.258..286D, doi:10.1038/258286a0, S2CID 4266855.

• DeVries, Phoebe M. R.; Viégas, Fernanda; Wattenberg, Martin; Meade, Brendan J. (August 2018). "Deep learning of aftershock patterns following large earthquakes". Nature. 560 (7720): 632–634. Bibcode:2018Natur.560..632D. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0438-y. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 30158606. S2CID 52118714.
• Donges, J.F.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Siegmund, J.F.; Donner, R.V. (2016), "Event coincidence analysis for quantifying statistical interrelationships between event time series", The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 225 (3): 471–487, arXiv:1508.03534, doi:10.1140/epjst/e2015-50233-y, ISSN 1951-6355, S2CID 88520803

• Drakopoulos, J.; Stavrakakis, G.N.; Latoussakis, J. (30 August 1993), "Evaluation and interpretation of thirteen official van – telegrams for the period September 10, 1986 to April 28, 1988.", Tectonophysics, 224 (1–3): 223–236, Bibcode:1993Tectp.224..223D, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(93)90075-U.

• Dollar, John (5 April 2010), "The man who predicted an earthquake", The Guardian.

• Eftaxias, K.; Athanasopoulou, L.; Balasis, G.; Kalimeri, M.; Nikolopoulos, S.; Contoyiannis, Y.; Kopanas, J.; Antonopoulos, G.; Nomicos, C. (25 November 2009), "Unfolding the procedure of characterizing recorded ultra low frequency, kHZ and MHz electromagetic anomalies prior to the L'Aquila earthquake as pre-seismic ones – Part 1", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9 (6): 1953–1971, arXiv:0910.0797, Bibcode:2009NHESS...9.1953E, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1953-2009, ISSN 1561-8633, S2CID 226246369

• Eftaxias, K.; Balasis, G.; Contoyiannis, Y.; Papadimitriou, C.; Kalimeri, M.; Athanasopoulou, L.; Nikolopoulos, S.; Kopanas, J.; Antonopoulos, G.; Nomicos, C. (16 February 2010), "Unfolding the procedure of characterizing recorded ultra low frequency, kHZ and MHz electromagnetic anomalies prior to the L'Aquila earthquake as pre-seismic ones – Part 2", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10 (2): 275–294, arXiv:0908.0686, Bibcode:2010NHESS..10..275E, doi:10.5194/nhess-10-275-2010, ISSN 1561-8633, S2CID 73570989

• Enriquez, Alberto (2015), "Earthquake-prediction technology deserves to be taken seriously (OPINION)", OregonLive.com, retrieved 19 November 2016.

• Evans, R. (December 1997), "Assessment of schemes for earthquake prediction: Editor's introduction", Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 413–420, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..413E, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06585.x.

• Field; et al. (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities) (2008). "The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF2)" (PDF). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 99 (4) (published 2009): 2053–2107. Bibcode:2009BuSSA..99.2053F. doi:10.1785/0120080049. Open-File Report 2007-1437.. Also published as California Geological Survey Special Report 203.

• Filizzola, C.; Pergola, N.; Pietrapertosa, C.; Tramutoli, V. (1 January 2004), "Robust satellite techniques for seismically active areas monitoring: a sensitivity analysis on September 7, 1999 Athens's earthquake", Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Seismo Electromagnetics and Related Phenomena, 29 (4): 517–527, Bibcode:2004PCE....29..517F, doi:10.1016/j.pce.2003.11.019, ISSN 1474-7065

• Evison, Frank (October 1999), "On the existence of earthquake precursors" (PDF), Annali di Geofisica, 42 (5): 763–770.

• Fraser-Smith, A. C.; Bernardi, A.; McGill, P. R.; Ladd, M. E.; Helliwell, R. A.; Villard, O. G. Jr. (August 1990), "Low-Frequency Magnetic Field Measurements Near the Epicenter of the Ms 7.1 Loma Prieta Earthquake", Geophysical Research Letters, 17 (9): 1465–1468, Bibcode:1990GeoRL..17.1465F, doi:10.1029/GL017i009p01465.\
• Freund, Friedemann (10 May 2000), "Time-resolved study of charge generation and propagation in igneous rocks", Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 105 (B5): 11001–11019, Bibcode:2000JGR...10511001F, doi:10.1029/1999JB900423, ISSN 2156-2202.

• Freund, Friedemann T.; Takeuchi, Akihiro; Lau, Bobby W. S. (1 January 2006), "Electric currents streaming out of stressed igneous rocks – A step towards understanding pre-earthquake low frequency EM emissions", Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Recent Progress in Seismo Electromagnetics and Related Phenomena, 31 (4): 389–396, Bibcode:2006PCE....31..389F, doi:10.1016/j.pce.2006.02.027, ISSN 1474-7065

• Freund, Friedemann; Sornette, Didier (20 February 2007), "Electro-magnetic earthquake bursts and critical rupture of peroxy bond networks in rocks", Tectonophysics, 431 (1): 33–47, arXiv:physics/0603205, Bibcode:2007Tectp.431...33F, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2006.05.032, ISSN 0040-1951, S2CID 45310425

• Freund, Friedemann T.; Kulahci, Ipek G.; Cyr, Gary; Ling, Julia; Winnick, Matthew; Tregloan-Reed, Jeremy; Freund, Minoru M. (1 December 2009), "Air ionization at rock surfaces and pre-earthquake signals", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71 (17): 1824–1834, Bibcode:2009JASTP..71.1824F, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.013, ISSN 1364-6826

• Freund, Friedemann (1 October 2010), "Toward a unified solid state theory for pre-earthquake signals", Acta Geophysica, 58 (5): 719–766, Bibcode:2010AcGeo..58..719F, doi:10.2478/s11600-009-0066-x, ISSN 1895-7455, S2CID 128744720

• Freund, Friedemann; Stolc, Viktor (2013), "Nature of Pre-Earthquake Phenomena and their Effects on Living Organisms", Animals, 3 (2): 513–531, doi:10.3390/ani3020513, PMC 4494396, PMID 26487415

• Garwin, Laura (26 October 1989), "A successful prediction?", Nature, 341 (6244): 677, Bibcode:1989Natur.341..677G, doi:10.1038/341677a0, S2CID 658586.

• Geller, Robert J. (17 October 1991), "Unpredictable earthquakes [response to Hamada]", Nature, 353 (6345): 612, Bibcode:1991Natur.353..612G, doi:10.1038/353612a0, S2CID 5154447.

• Geller, R. J. (1996a), "Short-term earthquake prediction in Greece by seismic electric signals", in Lighthill, J. (ed.), A Critical Review of VAN, World Scientific, pp. 155–238

• Geller, R. J. (27 May 1996b), "Debate on evaluation of the VAN method: Editor's introduction", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1291–1293, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1291G, doi:10.1029/96GL00742.

• Geller, Robert J. (December 1997), "Earthquake prediction: a critical review." (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 425–450, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..425G, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x

• Geller, Robert J.; Jackson, David D.; Kagan, Yan Y.; Mulargia, Francesco (14 March 1997), "Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted" (PDF), Science, 275 (5306): 1616, doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1616, S2CID 123516228.

• Geller, Robert J.; Jackson, David D.; Kagan, Yan Y.; Mulargia, Francesco; Stiros, Stathis (June 1998), "Letter" (PDF), Physics Today, 51 (6): 95–96, Bibcode:1998PhT....51f..15S, doi:10.1063/1.882266, archived from the original (PDF) on 23 March 2014.

• Genzano, N.; Aliano, C.; Corrado, R.; Filizzola, C.; Lisi, M.; Mazzeo, G.; Paciello, R.; Pergola, N.; Tramutoli, V. (11 December 2009), "RST analysis of MSG-SEVIRI TIR radiances at the time of the Abruzzo 6 April 2009 earthquake", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9 (6): 2073–2084, Bibcode:2009NHESS...9.2073G, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-2073-2009, hdl:11563/4343, ISSN 1561-8633

• Gersony, Robert, ed. (October 1982), "Volume XIII, Selected Available Documentation: The Brady Earthquake Predictions. Book B, Reports, Memoranda, Correspondence and Other Communication – Chronological Collection 1981–1982" (PDF), The Lima Disaster Preparedness Report.

• Giesecke, Albert A. (1983). "Case history of the Peru prediction for 1980–1981" (PDF). Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories. Geneva, 12–15 October 1982. UNDPRO. pp. 51–74.

• GR Reporter (8 August 2011). "Scientists from the VAN group are warning for a strong earthquake of 6 on the Richter scale". GR Reporter.
• Gruszow, S.; Rossignol, J. C.; Tzanis, A.; Le Mouël, J. L. (1 August 1996), "Identification and analysis of electromagnetic signals in Greece: the case of the Kozani earthquake VAN prediction", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (16): 2025–2028, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.2025G, doi:10.1029/96GL02170.

• Hall, Stephen S. (15 September 2011), "At Fault?" (PDF), Nature, 477 (7364): 264–269, Bibcode:2011Natur.477..264H, doi:10.1038/477264a, PMID 21921895, S2CID 205067216.

• Hamada, K. (17 October 1991), "Unpredictable earthquakes", Nature, 353 (6345): 611–612, Bibcode:1991Natur.353..611H, doi:10.1038/353611c0, S2CID 4239462.

• Hamada, Kazuo (30 August 1993), "Statistical evaluation of the SES predictions issued in Greece: alarm and success rates", Tectonophysics, 224 (1–3): 203–210, Bibcode:1993Tectp.224..203H, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(93)90073-S.

• Hamada, Kazuo (1996), "Re-examination of statistical evaluation of the SES prediction in Greece", in Lighthill, James (ed.), A Critical Review of VAN – Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electrical Signals, London: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 286–291, ISBN 978-981-02-2670-1.

• Hamilton, Robert M. (1976). The Status of Earthquake Prediction. Earthquake Prediction – Opportunity to Avert Disaster. A conference on earthquake warning and response held in San Francisco, California, on November 7, 1975. (PDF). United States Geological Survey. pp. 6–9. Circular 729.

• Hammond, Allen L. (23 May 1973), "Earthquake predictions: Breakthrough in theoretical insight?", Science, 180 (4088): 851–853, Bibcode:1973Sci...180..851H, doi:10.1126/science.180.4088.851, PMID 17789254.

• Hammond, Allen L. (3 May 1974), "Dilatancy: Growing Acceptance as an Earthquake Mechanism", Science, 184 (4136): 551–552, Bibcode:1974Sci...184..551H, doi:10.1126/science.184.4136.551, PMID 17755025.

• Hammond, Allen L. (7 February 1975), "Earthquake Prediction: Progress in California, Hesitation in Washington", Science, 187 (4175): 419–420, Bibcode:1975Sci...187..419H, doi:10.1126/science.187.4175.419, PMID 17835300.

• Hammond, Allen L. (7 May 1976), "Earthquakes: An evacuation in China, a warning in California", Science, 192 (4239): 538–539, Bibcode:1976Sci...192..538H, doi:10.1126/science.192.4239.538, PMID 17745640.

• Hardebeck, Jeanne L.; Felzer, Karen R.; Michael, Andrew J. (August 2008), "Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 113 (B08130): 8310, Bibcode:2008JGRB..113.8310H, doi:10.1029/2007JB005410.

• Harris, Ruth A. (1998). The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989 – Forecasts (PDF) (Report). United States Geological Survey. Open-File Report 1550-B..

• Harris, Ruth A.; Arrowsmith, J Ramon (September 2006), "Introduction to the Special Issue on the 2004 Parkfield Earthquake and the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96 (4B): S1 – S5, Bibcode:2006BuSSA..96S...1H, doi:10.1785/0120050831.

• Hayakawa, Masashi (2015), Fundamentals of earthquake prediction, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-1-118-77037-5.

• Helman, Daniel (2020), "Seismic electric signals (SES) and earthquakes: A review of an updated VAN method and competing hypotheses for SES generation and earthquake triggering", Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 302 (1): 106484, Bibcode:2020PEPI..30206484H, doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2020.106484, S2CID 216467109

• Heraud, J. A.; Centa, V. A.; Bleier, T. (1 December 2015), "Electromagnetic Precursors Leading to Triangulation of Future Earthquakes and Imaging of the Subduction Zone", AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 32: NH32B–03, Bibcode:2015AGUFMNH32B..03H.

• Hough, Susan E. (January–February 2010), "A seismological retrospective of the Brady-Spence prediction" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 81 (1): 113–117, Bibcode:2010SeiRL..81..113H, doi:10.1785/gssrl.81.1.113.

• Hough, Susan E. (2010b), Predicting the Unpredictable: The Tumultuous Science of Earthquake Prediction, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-13816-9.

• Huang, Qinghua (27 January 2015), "Forecasting the epicenter of a future major earthquake", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (4): 944–945, Bibcode:2015PNAS..112..944H, doi:10.1073/pnas.1423684112, ISSN 0027-8424, PMC 4313830, PMID 25583499.

• International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) (2 October 2009). Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization – Executive Summary (PDF) (Report). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2013.

• International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) (30 May 2011). "Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization". Annals of Geophysics. 54 (4): 315–391. doi:10.4401/ag-5350. hdl:20.500.11820/6552f865-6e59-47f1-a5ec-b7446bfd1a82. S2CID 129825964.

• Jackson, David D. (April 1996a), "Hypothesis testing and earthquake prediction", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 93 (9): 3772–3775, Bibcode:1996PNAS...93.3772J, doi:10.1073/pnas.93.9.3772, PMC 39435, PMID 11607663.

• Jackson, David D. (27 May 1996b), "Earthquake prediction evaluation standards applied to the VAN method", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1363–1366, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1363J, doi:10.1029/96gl01439.
• Jackson, David D. (2004). "Earthquake Prediction and Forecasting". In Sparks, R. S. J.; Hawkesworth, C. J. (eds.). The State of the Planet: Frontiers and Challenges in Geophysics. Geophysical Monograph Series. Vol. 150. Washington DC: American Geophysical Union. pp. 335–348. Bibcode:2004GMS...150..335J. doi:10.1029/150GM26. ISBN 0-87590-415-7. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help).

• Jackson, David D.; Kagan, Yan Y. (24 November 1998), "VAN method lacks validity" (PDF), Eos, 79 (47): 573–579, Bibcode:1998EOSTr..79..573J, doi:10.1029/98EO00418.

• Jackson, David D.; Kagan, Yan Y. (September 2006), "The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, the 1985 prediction, and characteristic earthquakes: Lessons for the future" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96 (4B): S397–S409, Bibcode:2006BuSSA..96S.397J, doi:10.1785/0120050821.

• Johnston, M.J.S. (2002), "Electromagnetic Fields Generated by Earthquakes", in Lee, William H.K.; Kanamori, Hiroo; Jennings, Paul C.; Kisslinger, Carl (eds.), International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, vol. 81A, pp. 621–635, ISBN 0-12-440652-1

• Johnston, M. J. S.; Sasai, Y.; Egbert, G. D.; Mueller, R. J. (September 2006), "Seismomagnetic Effects from the Long-Awaited 28 September 2004 M 6.0 Parkf1eld Earthquake" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96 (4B): S206 – S220, Bibcode:2006BuSSA..96S.206J, doi:10.1785/0120050810, S2CID 129965769.

• Jolliffe, Ian T.; Stephenson, David B., eds. (2003), Forecast Verification: A Practitioner's Guide in Atmospheric Science (1st ed.), John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-49759-2.

• Jones, Lucille M. (December 1985), "Foreshocks and time-dependent earthquake hazard assessment in southern California", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75 (6): 1669–1679, Bibcode:1985BuSSA..75.1667J.

• Jordan, Thomas H.; Jones, Lucile M. (July–August 2010), "Operational Earthquake Forecasting: Some thoughts on why and how" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 81 (4): 571–574, Bibcode:2010SeiRL..81..571J, doi:10.1785/gssrl.81.4.571.

• Kagan, Y. Y. (27 May 1996), "VAN earthquake predictions – an attempt at statistical evaluation" (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1315–1318, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1315K, doi:10.1029/95gl03417

• Kagan, Yan Y. (15 March 1997), "Statistical aspects of Parkfield earthquake sequence and Parkfield prediction experiment" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 270 (3–4): 207–219, Bibcode:1997Tectp.270..207K, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(96)00210-7.

• Kagan, Yan Y. (December 1997b), "Are earthquakes predictable?" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 505–525, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..505K, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06595.x.

• Kagan, Yan Y. (August 1999), "Is Earthquake Seismology a Hard, Quantitative Science?" (PDF), Pure and Applied Geophysics, 155 (2–4): 233–258, Bibcode:1999PApGe.155..233K, doi:10.1007/s000240050264, S2CID 6619331.

• Kagan, Yan Y.; Jackson, David D. (10 December 1991), "Seismic Gap Hypothesis: Ten Years After" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 96 (B13): 21, 419–21, 431, Bibcode:1991JGR....9621419K, doi:10.1029/91jb02210.

• Kagan, Yan Y.; Jackson, David D. (27 May 1996), "Statistical tests of VAN earthquake predictions: comments and reflections" (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1433–1436, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1433K, doi:10.1029/95GL03786.

• Kagan, Yan Y.; Jackson, David d.; Geller, Robert J. (November–December 2012), "Characteristic earthquake model, 1884 – 2011, R.I.P", Seismological Research Letters, 83 (6): 951–953, arXiv:1207.4836, Bibcode:2012arXiv1207.4836K, doi:10.1785/0220120107, S2CID 88513151.

• Kagan, Yan Y.; Knopoff, Leon (19 June 1987), "Statistical Short-Term Earthquake Prediction", Science, 236 (4808): 1563–1567, Bibcode:1987Sci...236.1563K, doi:10.1126/science.236.4808.1563, PMID 17835741, S2CID 12946111.

• Kanamori, Hiroo (2003), "Earthquake Prediction: An Overview", International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, International Geophysics, 616: 1205–1216, Bibcode:2003InGeo..81.1205K, doi:10.1016/s0074-6142(03)80186-9, ISBN 0-12-440658-0.

• Kanamori, Hiroo; Stewart, Gordon S. (10 July 1978), "Seismological Aspects of the Guatemala Earthquake of February 4, 1976" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 83 (B7): 3427–3434, Bibcode:1978JGR....83.3427K, doi:10.1029/JB083iB07p03427.

• Kappler, K. N.; Morrison, H. Frank; Egbert, G. D. (April 2010), "Long((en))term monitoring of ULF electromagnetic fields at Parkfield, California" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 115 (B4): B04406, Bibcode:2010JGRB..115.4406K, doi:10.1029/2009JB006421.

• Kerr, Richard A. (28 April 1978), "Earthquakes: Prediction Proving Elusive", Science, 200 (4340): 419–421, Bibcode:1978Sci...200..419K, doi:10.1126/science.200.4340.419, PMID 17757294.

• Kerr, Richard A. (2 November 1979), "Prospects for Earthquake Prediction Wane", Science, 206 (4418): 542–544, Bibcode:1979Sci...206..542K, doi:10.1126/science.206.4418.542, PMID 17759414.

• Kerr, Richard A. (20 February 1981), "Prediction of huge Peruvian quakes quashed", Science, 211 (4484): 808–809, Bibcode:1981Sci...211..808K, doi:10.1126/science.211.4484.808, PMID 17740381.

• Kerr, Richard A. (18 December 1981c), "Palmdale Bulge Doubts Now Taken Seriously", Science, 214 (4527): 1331–33, Bibcode:1981Sci...214.1331K, doi:10.1126/science.214.4527.1331, PMID 17812251.

• Kerr, Richard A. (6 January 1984), "Stalking the Next Parkfield Earthquake", Science, 223 (4631): 36–38, Bibcode:1984Sci...223...36K, doi:10.1126/science.223.4631.36, PMID 17752978.
  Kerr, R. A. (1984). "How to Catch an Earthquake". Science. 223 (4631): 38. doi:10.1126/science.223.4631.38. PMID 17752979.

• Kerr, Richard A. (27 October 1989), "Reading the Future in Loma Prieta", Science, 246 (4929): 436–439, Bibcode:1989Sci...246..436K, doi:10.1126/science.246.4929.436, PMID 17788681.

• Kerr, Richard A. (8 October 2004), "Parkfield Keeps Secrets After A Long-Awaited Quake", Science, 306 (5694): 206–7, doi:10.1126/science.306.5694.206, PMID 15472043, S2CID 32455927.

• Kerr, Richard A. (17 April 2009), "After the Quake, in Search of the Science – or Even a Good Prediction", Science, 324 (5925): 322, Bibcode:2009Sci...324..322K, doi:10.1126/science.324.5925.322, PMID 19372400, S2CID 206585897.

• Kossobokov, V.G.; Romashkova, L.L.; Keilis-Borok, V. I.; Healy, J.H. (1999). "Testing earthquake prediction algorithms: Statistically significant advance prediction of the largest earthquakes in the Circum-Pacific, 1992–1997". Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 111 (3–4): 187–196. Bibcode:1999PEPI..111..187K. doi:10.1016/S0031-9201(98)00159-9.
• Lighthill, James, ed. (1996), A Critical Review of VAN – Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electrical Signals, London: World Scientific Publishing, ISBN 978-981-02-2670-1.

• Lighton, John R.B.; Duncan, Frances D. (15 August 2005), "Shaken, not stirred: a serendipitous study of ants and earthquakes", Journal of Experimental Biology, 208 (16): 3103–3107, doi:10.1242/jeb.01735, PMID 16081608, S2CID 2487051.

• Lindberg, Robert G.; Skiles, Durward; Hayden, Page (1981). Can animals predict earthquakes? A search for correlations between changes in activity patterns of two fossorial rodents and subsequent seismic events (PDF) (Report). United States Geological Survey. Open-File Report 81-385..

• Lindh, A.G.; Lockner, D.A.; Lee, W.H.K. (June 1978), "Velocity anomalies: An alternative explanation" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 68 (3): 721–734.

• Lisi, M.; Filizzola, C.; Genzano, N.; Grimaldi, C. S. L.; Lacava, T.; Marchese, F.; Mazzeo, G.; Pergola, N.; Tramutoli, V. (26 February 2010), "A study on the Abruzzo 6 April 2009 earthquake by applying the RST approach to 15 years of AVHRR TIR observations", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10 (2): 395–406, Bibcode:2010NHESS..10..395L, doi:10.5194/nhess-10-395-2010, hdl:11563/4344, ISSN 1561-8633

• Lomnitz, Cinna (1994), Fundamentals of earthquake prediction, New York: John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-57419-8, OCLC 647404423.

• Lomnitz, Cinna; Nava, F. Alejandro (December 1983), "The predictive value of seismic gaps.", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73 (6A): 1815–1824.

• Lott, Dale F.; Hart, Benjamin L.; Verosub, Kenneth L.; Howell, Mary W. (September 1979), "Is Unusual Animal Behavior Observed Before Earthquakes? Yes and No", Geophysical Research Letters, 6 (9): 685–687, Bibcode:1979GeoRL...6..685L, doi:10.1029/GL006i009p00685.

• Lott, Dale F.; Hart, Benjamin L.; Howell, Mary W. (December 1981), "Retrospective Studies of Unusual Animal Behavior as an Earthquake Predictor", Geophysical Research Letters, 8 (12): 1203–1206, Bibcode:1981GeoRL...8.1203L, doi:10.1029/GL008i012p01203.

• Ludwin, Ruth (May 2001), "Earthquake Prediction" (PDF), Washington Geology, 28 (3): 27–28.

• Luen, Brad; Stark, Philip B. (2008), "Testing earthquake predictions", Institute of Mathematical Statistics collections: Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of David A. Freedman, vol. 2, pp. 302–315, arXiv:0805.3032, Bibcode:2008pseh.book..302L, doi:10.1214/193940307000000509, ISBN 978-0-94060074-4, S2CID 12016809.

• Luginbuhl, Molly; Rundle, John B.; Hawkins, Angela; Turcotte, Donald L. (2018), "Nowcasting Earthquakes: A Comparison of Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma and at the Geysers, California", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175 (1): 49–65, Bibcode:2018PApGe.175...49L, doi:10.1007/s00024-017-1678-8, ISSN 1420-9136, S2CID 134725994

• Luginbuhl, Molly; Rundle, John B.; Turcotte, Donald L. (2018a), "Natural Time and Nowcasting Earthquakes: Are Large Global Earthquakes Temporally Clustered?", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175 (2): 661–670, Bibcode:2018PApGe.175..661L, doi:10.1007/s00024-018-1778-0, ISSN 1420-9136, S2CID 186239922

• Luginbuhl, Molly; Rundle, John B.; Turcotte, Donald L. (2018b), "Natural time and nowcasting induced seismicity at the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands", Geophysical Journal International, 215 (2): 753–759, Bibcode:2018GeoJI.215..753L, doi:10.1093/gji/ggy315, ISSN 0956-540X

• Luginbuhl, Molly; Rundle, John B.; Turcotte, Donald L. (14 January 2019), "Statistical physics models for aftershocks and induced seismicity", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 377 (2136): 20170397, Bibcode:2019RSPTA.37770397L, doi:10.1098/rsta.2017.0397, PMC 6282405, PMID 30478209

• Mabey, Matthew A. (May 2001), "The Charlatan Game" (PDF), Washington Geology, 28 (3): 27–28. Also at USGS.

• Main, Ian (25 February 1999). "Is the reliable prediction of individual earthquakes a realistic scientific goal?". Nature. Archived from the original on 8 May 2001.

• Main, Ian G.; Bell, Andrew F.; Meredith, Philip G.; Geiger, Sebastian; Touati, Sarah (August 2012), "The dilatancy–diffusion hypothesis and earthquake predictability", Geological Society of London, Special Publications, 367 (1): 215–230, Bibcode:2012GSLSP.367..215M, doi:10.1144/SP367.15, hdl:20.500.11820/9d1fbd67-7faa-4adc-8c6f-d742fea1524c, S2CID 73524237.

• Martucci, Matteo; Sparvoli, Roberta; Bartocci, Simona; Battiston, Roberto; Burger, William Jerome; Campana, Donatella; Carfora, Luca; Castellini, Guido; Conti, Livio; Contin, Andrea; De Donato, Cinzia (2021), "Trapped Proton Fluxes Estimation Inside the South Atlantic Anomaly Using the NASA AE9/AP9/SPM Radiation Models along the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite Orbit", Applied Sciences, 11 (8): 3465, doi:10.3390/app11083465, hdl:11585/870881.

• Mason, Ian (2003), Binary Events. Chap. 3 in Jolliffe & Stephenson 2003.

• Matthews, Robert A. J. (December 1997), "Decision-theoretic limits on earthquake prediction", Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 526–529, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..526M, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06596.x.

• McCann, W. R.; Nishenko, S. P.; Sykes, L. R.; Krause, J. (1979), "Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: Seismic potential for major boundaries", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 117 (6): 1082–1147, Bibcode:1979PApGe.117.1082M, doi:10.1007/BF00876211, S2CID 129377355.

• McEvilly, T.V.; Johnson, L.R. (April 1974), "Stability of P an S velocities from Central California quarry blasts", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 64 (2): 343–353, Bibcode:1974BuSSA..64..343M, doi:10.1785/BSSA0640020343, S2CID 130963434.

• McIntyre, Jamie (April–May 2009), "When Outrage Trumps Science: Italian quake prediction produces tabloid tremors", American Journalism Review.

• McNally, Karen (November–December 1979), "Trapping an Earthquake" (PDF), Engineering & Science, pp. 7–12.

• Mignan, Arnaud (June 2011), "Retrospective on the Accelerating Seismic Release (ASR) hypothesis: controversy and new horizons", Tectonophysics, 505 (1–4): 1–16, Bibcode:2011Tectp.505....1M, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2011.03.010.

• Mignan, Arnaud (14 February 2013), "The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis", Scientific Reports, 4: 4099, doi:10.1038/srep04099, PMC 3924212, PMID 24526224.

• Mignan, Arnaud; Broccardo, Marco (2 October 2019). "Neural Network Applications in Earthquake Prediction (1994-2019): Meta-Analytic Insight on their Limitations". arXiv:1910.01178. doi:10.1785/0220200021. S2CID 203642017. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Mileti, Dennis; Sorensen, John (August 1990). Communication of Emergency Public Warnings (Report). doi:10.2172/6137387. Retrieved 20 September 2016 – via OSTI.GOV.

• Miller, Sunlen; Patrick, Maggy; Capatides, Christina (24 August 2011), Sixth Sense? Zoo Animals Sensed Quake Early, United States: ABC News.

• Mulargia, Francesco; Gasperini, Paolo (1992), "Evaluating the statistical validity beyond chance of 'VAN' earthquake precursors" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 111 (1): 32–44, Bibcode:1992GeoJI.111...32M, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1992.tb00552.x.

• Mulargia, Francesco; Gasperini, Paolo (27 May 1996a), "Precursor candidacy and validation: The VAN case so far" (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1323–1326, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1323M, doi:10.1029/95GL03456.

• Mulargia, Francesco; Gasperini, Paolo (27 May 1996b), "VAN: Candidacy and validation with the latest laws of the game" (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1327–1330, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1327M, doi:10.1029/95gl03455.

• Novikov, Victor A.; Okunev, Vladimir I.; Klyuchkin, Vadim N.; Liu, Jing; Ruzhin, Yuri Ya.; Shen, Xuhui (1 August 2017), "Electrical triggering of earthquakes: results of laboratory experiments at spring-block models", Earthquake Science, 30 (4): 167–172, Bibcode:2017EaSci..30..167N, doi:10.1007/s11589-017-0181-8, ISSN 1867-8777, S2CID 133812017

• Ohshansky, R.B.; Geller, R.J. (2003), "Earthquake prediction and public policy", in Mulargia, Francesgo; Geller, Robert J. (eds.), Earthquake Science and Seismic Risk Reduction, NATO Science Series, IV Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol. 32, Kluwer, pp. 284–329, doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0041-3_8, ISBN 978-94-010-0041-3.

• Otis, Leon; Kautz, William (1979). Biological premonitions of earthquakes: a validation study (Report). United States Geological Survey. pp. 225–226. Open-File Report 80-453..

• Panagopoulos, Dimitris J.; Balmori, Alfonso; Chrousos, George P. (15 May 2020), "On the biophysical mechanism of sensing upcoming earthquakes by animals", Science of the Total Environment, 717: 136989, Bibcode:2020ScTEn.71736989P, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136989, ISSN 0048-9697, PMID 32070887, S2CID 211192101

• Panel on Earthquake Prediction of the Committee on Seismology (July 1976). Predicting Earthquakes: A Scientific and Technical Evaluation – with Implications for Society (Report). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Sciences..

• Papadopoulos, Gerassimos A. (4 May 2010), "Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"", Eos, 91 (18): 162, Bibcode:2010EOSTr..91..162P, doi:10.1029/2010EO180003.

• Papadopoulos, Gerassimos A. (2015), "Communicating to the General Public Earthquake Prediction Information: Lessons Learned in Greece, Chap. 19", in Wyss, Max; Peppoloni, Silvia (eds.), Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences, Elsevier Science, pp. 223–242, ISBN 978-0-12-799935-7.

• Park, S. (July 1996), "Precursors to earthquakes: seismoelectromagnetic signals" (PDF), Surveys in Geophysics, 17 (4): 493–516, Bibcode:1996SGeo...17..493P, doi:10.1007/BF01901642, S2CID 55247676.

• Park, Stephen K.; Dalrymple, William; Larsen, Jimmy C. (2007), "The 2004 Parkfield earthquake: Test of the electromagnetic precursor hypothesis", Journal of Geophysical Research, 112 (B5): B05302, Bibcode:2007JGRB..112.5302P, doi:10.1029/2005JB004196.

• Pasari, Sumanta (1 April 2019), "Nowcasting Earthquakes in the Bay of Bengal Region", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176 (4): 1417–1432, Bibcode:2019PApGe.176.1417P, doi:10.1007/s00024-018-2037-0, ISSN 1420-9136, S2CID 134896312

• Pergola, N.; Aliano, C.; Coviello, I.; Filizzola, C.; Genzano, N.; Lacava, T.; Lisi, M.; Mazzeo, G.; Tramutoli, V. (11 February 2010), "Using RST approach and EOS-MODIS radiances for monitoring seismically active regions: a study on the 6 April 2009 Abruzzo earthquake", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10 (2): 239–249, Bibcode:2010NHESS..10..239P, doi:10.5194/nhess-10-239-2010, hdl:11563/2364, ISSN 1561-8633

• Pham, V. N.; Boyer, D.; Chouliaras, G.; Le Mouël, J. L.; Rossignol, J. C.; Stavrakakis, G. N. (15 June 1998), "Characteristics of electromagnetic noise in the Ioannina region (Greece); a possible origin for so called "Seismic Electric Signals" (SES)" (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 25 (12): 2229–2232, Bibcode:1998GeoRL..25.2229P, doi:10.1029/98gl01593, S2CID 129231700.

• Pham, V. N.; Boyer, D.; Chouliaras, G.; Savvaidis, A.; Stavrakakis, G. N.; Le Mouël, J. L. (2002), "Sources of anomalous transient electric signals (ATESs) in the ULF band in the Lamia region (central Greece): electrochemical mechanisms for their generation", Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 130 (3–4): 209–233, Bibcode:2002PEPI..130..209P, doi:10.1016/s0031-9201(02)00008-0.

• Pham, V. N.; Boyer, D.; Le Mouël, J. L.; Chouliaras, G.; Stavrakakis, G. N. (1999), "Electromagnetic signals generated in the solid Earth by digital transmission of radio-waves as a plausible source for some so-called 'seismic electric signals'" (PDF), Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 114 (3–4): 141–163, Bibcode:1999PEPI..114..141P, doi:10.1016/s0031-9201(99)00050-3.

• Politis, D.; Potirakis, S. M.; Hayakawa, M. (1 May 2020), "Criticality analysis of 3-year-long VLF subionospheric propagation data possibly related to significant earthquake events in Japan", Natural Hazards, 102 (1): 47–66, Bibcode:2020NatHa.102...47P, doi:10.1007/s11069-020-03910-3, ISSN 1573-0840, S2CID 214783152

• Raleigh, C. B.; Bennett, G.; Craig, H.; Hanks, T.; Molnar, P.; Nur, A.; Savage, J.; Scholz, C.; Turner, R.; Wu, F. (May 1977), "Prediction of the Haicheng Earthquake", Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 58 (5): 236–272, Bibcode:1977EOSTr..58..236., doi:10.1029/EO058i005p00236. By the Haicheng Earthquake Study Delegation.

• Reid, Harry Fielding (1910), "Volume II. The Mechanics of the Earthquake.", The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, Washington, D. C.: Carnegie institution of Washington.

• Rhoades, D.A.; Evison, F.F. (27 May 1996), "The VAN earthquake predictions", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1371–1373, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1371R, doi:10.1029/95GL02792.

• Rikitake, Tsuneji (1 May 1979), "Classification of earthquake precursors", Tectonophysics, 54 (3–4): 293–309, Bibcode:1979Tectp..54..293R, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(79)90372-X.

• Rikitake, Tsuneji (1982), Earthquake Forecasting and Warning, Tokyo: Center for Academic Publications.

• Roberts, J.L. (1983). "Notes on procedure for conveying earthquake forecasts with special reference to the Peru predictions for 1980–1981" (PDF). Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories. Geneva, 12–15 October 1982. UNDPRO.

• Roeloffs, Evelyn; Langbein, John (August 1994), "The earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield California", Reviews of Geophysics, 32 (3): 315–336, Bibcode:1994RvGeo..32..315R, doi:10.1029/94RG01114.

• Rong, Yufang; Jackson, David D.; Kagan, Yan Y. (October 2003), "Seismic gaps and earthquakes" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (B10): 2471, Bibcode:2003JGRB..108.2471R, doi:10.1029/2002JB002334, S2CID 14079028.

• Rouet-Leduc, Bertrand; Hulbert, Claudia; Lubbers, Nicholas; Barros, Kipton; Humphreys, Colin; Johnson, Paul A. (28 September 2017). "Machine Learning Predicts Laboratory Earthquakes". Geophysical Research Letters. 44 (18): 9276–9282. arXiv:1702.05774. Bibcode:2017GeoRL..44.9276R. doi:10.1002/2017GL074677. S2CID 118842086.
• Rozhnoi, A.; Solovieva, M.; Molchanov, O.; Schwingenschuh, K.; Boudjada, M.; Biagi, P. F.; Maggipinto, T.; Castellana, L.; Ermini, A.; Hayakawa, M. (21 October 2009), "Anomalies in VLF radio signals prior the Abruzzo earthquake (M=6.3) on 6 April 2009", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9 (5): 1727–1732, Bibcode:2009NHESS...9.1727R, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1727-2009, ISSN 1561-8633

• Rundle, John B.; Holliday, James R.; Graves, William R.; Turcotte, Donald L.; Tiampo, Kristy F.; Klein, William (2012), "Probabilities for large events in driven threshold systems", Physical Review E, 86 (2): 021106, Bibcode:2012PhRvE..86b1106R, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.86.021106, PMID 23005722, S2CID 17100504.

• Rundle, J. B.; Turcotte, D. L.; Donnellan, A.; Ludwig, L. Grant; Luginbuhl, M.; Gong, G. (2016), "Nowcasting earthquakes", Earth and Space Science, 3 (11): 480–486, Bibcode:2016E&SS....3..480R, doi:10.1002/2016EA000185, ISSN 2333-5084

• Rundle, John B.; Luginbuhl, Molly; Giguere, Alexis; Turcotte, Donald L. (2018b), "Natural Time, Nowcasting and the Physics of Earthquakes: Estimation of Seismic Risk to Global Megacities", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175 (2): 647–660, arXiv:1709.10057, Bibcode:2018PApGe.175..647R, doi:10.1007/s00024-017-1720-x, ISSN 1420-9136, S2CID 54169682

• Rundle, John B.; Giguere, Alexis; Turcotte, Donald L.; Crutchfield, James P.; Donnellan, Andrea (2019), "Global Seismic Nowcasting With Shannon Information Entropy", Earth and Space Science, 6 (1): 191–197, Bibcode:2019E&SS....6..191R, doi:10.1029/2018EA000464, ISSN 2333-5084, PMC 6392127, PMID 30854411

• Rundle, John B.; Luginbuhl, Molly; Khapikova, Polina; Turcotte, Donald L.; Donnellan, Andrea; McKim, Grayson (1 January 2020), "Nowcasting Great Global Earthquake and Tsunami Sources", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 177 (1): 359–368, doi:10.1007/s00024-018-2039-y, ISSN 1420-9136, S2CID 133790229

• Saegusa, A. (28 January 1999), "China clamps down on inaccurate warnings", Nature, 397 (6717): 284, Bibcode:1999Natur.397..284W, doi:10.1038/16756, PMID 9950418, S2CID 4314191.

• Sarlis, Nicholas V. (2013), "On the recent seismic activity in North-Eastern Aegean Sea including the M_w5.8 earthquake on 8 January 2013", Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, 89 (9): 438–445, Bibcode:2013PJAB...89..438S, doi:10.2183/pjab.89.438, PMC 3865358, PMID 24213207.

• Sarlis, N.; Lazaridou, M.; Kapiris, P.; Varotsos, P. (1 November 1999), "Numerical model of the selectivity effect and the ΔV/L criterion", Geophysical Research Letters, 26 (21): 3245–3248, Bibcode:1999GeoRL..26.3245S, doi:10.1029/1998GL005265, ISSN 1944-8007.

• Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S.; Christopoulos, S.-R. G.; Varotsos, P. A. (January 2016), "Statistical Significance of Minimum of the Order Parameter Fluctuations of Seismicity Before Major Earthquakes in Japan", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 173 (1): 165–172, Bibcode:2016PApGe.173..165S, doi:10.1007/s00024-014-0930-8, ISSN 0033-4553, S2CID 129004948.

• Sarlis, Nicholas V. (2018), "Statistical Significance of Earth's Electric and Magnetic Field Variations Preceding Earthquakes in Greece and Japan Revisited", Entropy, 20 (8): 561, Bibcode:2018Entrp..20..561S, doi:10.3390/e20080561, PMC 7513084, PMID 33265650

• Sarlis, Nicholas V.; Skordas, Efthimios S.; Christopoulos, Stavros-Richard G.; Varotsos, Panayiotis A. (2020), "Natural Time Analysis: The Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve of the Order Parameter Fluctuations Minima Preceding Major Earthquakes", Entropy, 22 (5): 583, Bibcode:2020Entrp..22..583S, doi:10.3390/e22050583, ISSN 1099-4300, PMC 7517102, PMID 33286355

• Schaal, Rand B. (February 1988), "An evaluation of the animal-behavior theory for earthquake predictions" (PDF), California Geology, 41 (2): 41–45.

• Scholz, Christopher H. (2002), The Mechanics of earthquakes and faulting (2nd ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, ISBN 0-521-65223-5.

• Scholz, Christopher H.; Sykes, Lynn R.; Aggarwal, Yah P. (31 August 1973), "Earthquake Prediction: A Physical Basis", Science, 181 (4102): 803–810, Bibcode:1973Sci...181..803S, doi:10.1126/science.181.4102.803, PMID 17816227.

• Schwartz, David P.; Coppersmith, Kevin J. (10 July 1984), "Fault Behavior and Characteristic Earthquakes: Examples From the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones", Journal of Geophysical Research, 89 (B7): 5681–5698, Bibcode:1984JGR....89.5681S, doi:10.1029/JB089iB07p05681.

• Shnirman, M.; Schreider, S.; Dmitrieva, O. (1993), "Statistical evaluation of the VAN predictions issued during the period 1987–1989." (PDF), Tectonophysics, 224 (1–3): 211–221, Bibcode:1993Tectp.224..211S, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(93)90074-t.

• Sibson, R. H. (1986), "Earthquakes and Lineament Infrastructure", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 317 (1539): 63–79, Bibcode:1986RSPTA.317...63S, doi:10.1098/rsta.1986.0025, S2CID 122934024.

• Skordas, E. S.; Christopoulos, S.-R. G.; Sarlis, N. V. (2 January 2020), "Detrended fluctuation analysis of seismicity and order parameter fluctuations before the M7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake" (PDF), Natural Hazards, 100 (2): 697–711, Bibcode:2020NatHa.100..697S, doi:10.1007/s11069-019-03834-7, S2CID 209542427.

• Spence, William; Herrmann, Robert B.; Johnston, Arch C.; Reagor, Glen (1993). Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake (PDF) (Report). United States Geological Survey. Circular 1083..

• Squires, Nick; Rayne, Gordon (6 April 2009), "Italian earthquake: expert's warnings were dismissed as scaremongering", The Telegraph.

• Stark, Philip B. (1997), "Earthquake prediction: the null hypothesis", Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 495–499, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..495S, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.36.7867, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06593.x, S2CID 17343855.

• Stavrakakis, George N.; Drakopoulos, John (27 May 1996), "The VAN method: Contradictory and misleading results since 1981", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1347–1350, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1347S, doi:10.1029/95gl03546.

• Stein, Seth; Friedrich, Anke; Newman, Andrew (July–August 2005), "Dependence of possible characteristic earthquakes on spatial sampling: illustration for the Wasatch seismic zone, Utah" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 76 (4): 432–436, Bibcode:2005SeiRL..76..432S, doi:10.1785/gssrl.76.4.432.

• Stein, Seth; Newman, Andrew (March–April 2004), "Characteristic and uncharacteristic earthquakes as possible artifacts: application to the New Madrid and Wabash seismic zones" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 75 (2): 173–187, Bibcode:2004SeiRL..75..173S, doi:10.1785/gssrl.75.2.173.

• Stiros, Stathis C. (December 1997), "Costs and benefits of earthquake prediction studies in Greece" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 478–484, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..478S, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.1997.tb06591.x, S2CID 129578066.

• Sykes, Lynn R.; Shaw, Bruce E.; Scholz, Christopher H. (1999), "Rethinking Earthquake Prediction" (PDF), Pure and Applied Geophysics, 155 (2–4): 207–232, Bibcode:1999PApGe.155..207S, doi:10.1007/s000240050263, S2CID 11412679.

• Tarasov, N. T.; Tarasova, N. V. (18 December 2009), "Spatial-temporal structure of seismicity of the North Tien Shan and its changeunder effect of high energy electromagnetic pulses", Annals of Geophysics, 47 (1), doi:10.4401/ag-3272

• Thomas, J. N.; Love, J. J.; Johnston, M. J. S. (2009), "On the reported magnetic precursor of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake", Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 173 (3–4): 207–215, Bibcode:2009PEPI..173..207T, doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2008.11.014.

• Thomas, Lee M. (1983). "Economic impacts of earthquake prediction" (PDF). Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories. Geneva, 12–15 October 1982. UNDPRO. pp. 179–185.

• Tiampo, Kristy F.; Shcherbakov, Robert (2012), "Seismicity-based earthquake forecasting techniques: Ten years of progress" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 522–523: 89–121, Bibcode:2012Tectp.522...89T, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2011.08.019.

• Tierney, Kathleen J. (1993), "Making sense of collective preoccupations: lessons from research on the Iben Browning earthquake prediction." (PDF), in Platt, Gerald M.; Gordon, Chad (eds.), Self, Collective Behavior, and Society: Essays Honoring the Contributions of Ralph H. Turner, JAI Press, ISBN 978-1-55938-755-2.

• Tsolis, G. S.; Xenos, T. D. (22 January 2010), "A qualitative study of the seismo-ionospheric precursors prior to the 6 April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10 (1): 133–137, Bibcode:2010NHESS..10..133T, doi:10.5194/nhess-10-133-2010, ISSN 1561-8633

• Turner, Ralph H. (November 1993), "Reflections on the Past and Future of Social Research on Earthquake Warnings", International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 11 (3): 454–468, doi:10.1177/028072709301100314, S2CID 112795022.

• U.S. Geological Survey Staff (19 January 1990), "The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake: an anticipated event", Science, 247 (4940): 286–293, Bibcode:1990Sci...247..286G, doi:10.1126/science.247.4940.286, PMID 17735847.

• Uyeda, Seiya; Nagao, Toshiyasu; Kamogawa, Masashi (29 May 2009), "Short-term earthquake prediction: Current status of seismo-electromagnetics", Tectonophysics, 470 (3–4): 205–213, Bibcode:2009Tectp.470..205U, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.07.019.

• Uyeda, Seiya; Kamogawa, Masashi (23 September 2008), "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece", Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 89 (39): 363, Bibcode:2008EOSTr..89..363U, doi:10.1029/2008EO390002, ISSN 2324-9250.

• Uyeda, S. (1996), "Introduction to the VAN method of earthquake prediction", in Lighthill, James (ed.), A Critical Review of VAN – Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electrical Signals, London: World Scientific Publishing, ISBN 978-981-02-2670-1.

• Uyeda, Seiya (24 November 1998), "VAN Method of Short-term Earthquake Prediction Shows Promise", Eos, 79 (47): 573–580, Bibcode:1998EOSTr..79..573U, doi:10.1029/98EO00417.

• Uyeda, Seiya (4 January 2000), "In Defense of VAN's Earthquake Predictions", Forum, Eos, 81 (1): 3–6, Bibcode:2000EOSTr..81....3U, doi:10.1029/00EO00005.

• Uyeda, Seiya; Kamogawa, Masashi (2010), "Reply to Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"", Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 91 (18): 163, Bibcode:2010EOSTr..91..163U, doi:10.1029/2010EO180004, ISSN 0096-3941

• Uyeda, S.; Nagao, T.; Kamogawa, M. (2011), "Earthquake Precursors and Prediction", in Gupta H.K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics, Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8702-7, ISBN 978-90-481-8701-0

• Varotsos, P.; Alexopoulos, K.; Nomicos, K. (1981), "Seven-hour precursors to earthquakes determined from telluric currents", Praktika of the Academy of Athens, 56: 417–433.

• Varotsos, P.; Alexopoulos, K. (December 1984a), "Physical properties of the variations of the electric field of the earth preceding earthquakes, I" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 110 (1): 73–98, Bibcode:1984Tectp.110...73V, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(84)90059-3.

• Varotsos, P.; Alexopoulos, K. (December 1984b), "Physical properties of the variations of the electric field of the earth preceding earthquakes. II. determination of epicenter and magnitude" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 110 (1): 99–125, Bibcode:1984Tectp.110...99V, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(84)90060-X.

• Varotsos, P.; Alexopoulos, K.; Lazaridou, M. (August 1993), "Latest aspects of earthquake prediction in Greece based on seismic electric signals, II", Tectonophysics, 224 (1): 1–37, Bibcode:1993Tectp.224....1V, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(93)90055-O.

• Varotsos, P.; Eftaxias, K.; Lazaridou, M. (27 May 1996), "Reply I to "VAN: Candidacy and validation with the latest laws of the game" and "Precursor candidacy and validation: The VAN Case so far"", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1331–1334, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1331V, doi:10.1029/96GL01436, ISSN 1944-8007.

• Varotsos, P.; Lazaridou, M. (1991), "Latest aspects of earthquake prediction in Greece based on seismic electric signals", Tectonophysics, 188 (3–4): 321–347, Bibcode:1991Tectp.188..321V, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(91)90462-2.

• Varotsos, P.; Lazaridou, M.; Eftaxias, K.; Antonopoulos, G.; Makris, J.; Kopanas, J. (1996a), "Short-term earthquake prediction in Greece by seismic electric signals", in Lighthill, J. (ed.), A Critical Review of VAN, World Scientific, pp. 29–76.

• Varotsos, P.; Lazaridou, M. (27 May 1996b), "Reply to "The VAN earthquake predictions," by D. A. Rhoades and F. F. Evison", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1375–1378, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1375V, doi:10.1029/96GL00910, ISSN 1944-8007.

• Varotsos, P.; Lazaridou, M.; Hadjicontis, V. (27 May 1996), "Reply to "Earthquake prediction evaluation standards applied to the VAN Method"", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1367–1370, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1367V, doi:10.1029/96GL00916, ISSN 1944-8007.

• Varotsos, P.; Alexopoulos, K.; Nomicos, K.; Lazaridou, M. (1986), "Earthquake prediction and electric signals", Nature, 322 (6075): 120, Bibcode:1986Natur.322..120V, doi:10.1038/322120a0, S2CID 4304127.

• Varotsos, P.; Alexopoulos, K.; Nomicos, K.; Lazaridou, M. (20 September 1988), "Official earthquake prediction procedure in Greece", Tectonophysics, 152 (3–4): 93–196, Bibcode:1988Tectp.152..193V, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(88)90045-5.

• Varotsos, P.; Sarlis, N.; Lazaridou, M.; Kapiris, P. (1998), "Transmission of stress induced electric signals", Journal of Applied Physics, 83 (1): 60–70, Bibcode:1998JAP....83...60V, doi:10.1063/1.366702.

• Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (22 November 2001), "Spatio-temporal complexity aspects on the interrelation between seismic electric signals and seismicity" (PDF), Praktika of the Academy of Athens, 76: 294–321.

• Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (26 February 2003a), "Long-range correlations in the electric signals that precede rupture: Further investigations" (PDF), Physical Review E, 67 (2): 021109, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..67b1109V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021109, PMID 12636655.

• Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (23 September 2003b), "Attempt to distinguish electric signals of a dichotomous nature" (PDF), Physical Review E, 68 (3): 031106, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..68c1106V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.031106, PMID 14524749.

• Varotsos, P.; Sarlis, N.; Skordas, E. (2011), Natural time analysis: the new view of time; Precursory seismic electric signals, earthquakes and other complex time series, Springer Praxis, ISBN 978-3-642-16448-4.

• Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S.; Lazaridou, M. S. (18 March 2013), "Seismic Electric Signals: An additional fact showing their physical interconnection with seismicity" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 589: 116–125, Bibcode:2013Tectp.589..116V, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2012.12.020.

• Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (17 December 2020), "Self-organized criticality and earthquake predictability: A long-standing question in the light of natural time analysis", EPL (Europhysics Letters), 132 (2): 29001, Bibcode:2020EL....13229001V, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/132/29001, ISSN 1286-4854, S2CID 230670498.

• Vidale, John E. (16 February 1996), "Do Big and Little Earthquakes Start Differently?", Science, 271 (5251): 953–954, Bibcode:1996Sci...271..953V, doi:10.1126/science.271.5251.953, S2CID 129107396.

• Wade, Nicholas (14 October 1977), "Briefing: More Flowers, less Cabbage", Science, 198 (4313): 176–177, Bibcode:1977Sci...198..176W, doi:10.1126/science.198.4313.176-a, PMID 17755352, S2CID 26607710.

• Wang, Kelin; Chen, Qi-Fu; Sun, Shihong; Wang, Andong (June 2006), "Predicting the 1975 Haicheng Earthquake" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96 (3): 757–795, Bibcode:2006BuSSA..96..757W, doi:10.1785/0120050191.

• Ward, Peter L. (1978), "Ch. 3: Earthquake prediction" (PDF), Geophysical predictions, National Academy of Sciences.

• Wells, D. L.; Coppersmith, K. J. (August 1994), "New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement." (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84 (4): 974–1002, Bibcode:1994BuSSA..84..974W, doi:10.1785/BSSA0840040974, S2CID 10561127.

• Whitcomb, J. H. (1977), "An update of time-dependent vp/vs and ^Vp in an area of the Transverse Range of southern California [abstract]" (PDF), Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 58 (5): 305.

• Whitham, K.; Berry, M.J.; Heidebrecht, A.C.; Kanasewich, E.R.; Milne, W.G (1976), "Earthquake Prediction in China", Geoscience Canada, 3 (4): 96, 263–268.

• Wood, H. O.; Gutenberg, B. (6 September 1935), "Earthquake prediction", Science, 82 (2123): 219–320, Bibcode:1935Sci....82..219W, doi:10.1126/science.82.2123.219, PMID 17818812.

• Wyss, M. (1991a), "Introduction", Tectonophysics, 193 (4): 253–254, Bibcode:1991Tectp.193..253W, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(91)90334-o.

• Wyss, M. (1996), "Brief summary of some reasons why the VAN hypothesis for predicting earthquakes has to be rejected", A critical review of VAN, London: Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific, pp. 250–266.

• Wyss, M.; Allmann, L. (1996), "Probability of chance correlations of earthquakes with prediction in areas of heterogeneous seismicity rate: the VAN case", Geophysical Research Letters, 22 (11): 1307–1310, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1307W, doi:10.1029/95GL03548.

• Wyss, Max; Booth, David C. (1997), "The IASPEI procedure for the evaluation of earthquake precursors", Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 423–424, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..423W, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06587.x.

• Yoshii, Hiroaki (30 August 1993), "Social impacts of earthquake prediction in Greece", Tectonophysics, 224 (1–3): 251–255, Bibcode:1993Tectp.224..251Y, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(93)90077-W.

• Zechar, J. Douglas (August 2008). Methods for Evaluating Earthquake Prediction (PDF) (PhD dissertation). Univ. of Southern California. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 October 2013.

• Zechar, J. Douglas; Jordan, Thomas H. (2008), "Testing alarm-based earthquake predictions" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 172 (2): 715–724, Bibcode:2008GeoJI.172..715Z, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03676.x, archived from the original (PDF) on 29 April 2014.

• Zechar, J. Douglas; Schorlemmer, Danijel; Liukis, Maria; Yu, John; Euchner, Fabian; Maechling, Philip J.; Jordan, Thomas H. (2010), "The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability perspective on computational earthquake science" (PDF), Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 22 (12): 1836–1847, doi:10.1002/cpe.1519, S2CID 12672343.

• Zeigarnik, Vladimir A.; Novikov, Viktor A.; Avagimov, A. A.; Tarasov, N. T.; Bogomolov, Leonid (2007), "Discharge of Tectonic Stresses in the Earth Crust by High-power Electric Pulses for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation", 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, S2CID 195726703

• Ziv, A.; Cochard, A.; Schmittbuhl, J. (2007), "Does Elastic Rebound Theory apply to Seismic Faults?", in Carpinteri, Alberto; Lacidogna, Giuseppi (eds.), Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Fracture, Turin, Italy, March 20–25, 2005, pp. 51–55, doi:10.1201/9780203936115.ch7 (inactive 11 November 2024), ISBN 978-0-415-44402-6{{citation}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link) (eBook: ISBN 978-0-203-93611-5.

• Zoback, Mark D. (21 October 1983), "Seismology [book review of Rikitake, Earthquake Forecasting and Warning]", Science, 222 (4621): 319, Bibcode:1983Sci...222..319R, doi:10.1126/science.222.4621.319, PMID 17734830.

• Zoback, Mary Lou (April–May 2006), "The 1906 earthquake and a century of progress in understanding earthquakes and their hazards", GSA Today, 16 (r/5): 4–11, Bibcode:2006GSAT...16d...4Z, doi:10.1130/GSAT01604.1, S2CID 129036731.

Addition reading

• Robbins, Stuart (1 September 2012). "Lunatic Earthquakes: Do Tides Cause Quakes?". Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast. – discussing why the claim that earthquakes can be predicted is false.
• Short-Term Earthquake Hazard Assessment for the San Andreas Fault in Southern California (PDF) (Report). United States Geological Survey. 1991. Open-File Report 91-32.
• Hough, Susan Elizabeth (2007). Richter's Scale: Measure of an Earthquake, Measure of a Man. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12807-8.
• Langer, James S. (2008). "Richter's Scale: Measure of an Earthquake, Measure of a Man , Susan Elizabeth Hough , Princeton U. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007. (335 pp.). ISBN 978-0-691-12807-8". Physics Today. 61 (1): 60–62. Bibcode:2008PhT....61a..60H. doi:10.1063/1.2835157.
• G.-P. Ostermeyer, V.L. Popov, E. Shilko, O. Vasiljeva (2021). Multiscale Biomechanics and Tribology of Inorganic and Organic Systems. In memory of Professor Sergey Psakhie. Springer Int. Publ. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60124-9

External links

• U.S. Geological Survey: Earthquake Prediction Topics
• U.S. Geological Survey: Earthquake Statistics

Categories:

• Earthquake and seismic risk mitigation
• Prediction
• Earthquakes