Misplaced Pages

Earthquake prediction

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikenorton (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 20 June 2012 (rv - no evidence that this method is notable). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:07, 20 June 2012 by Mikenorton (talk | contribs) (rv - no evidence that this method is notable)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article may have too many section headers. Please help consolidate the article. (April 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Part of a series on
Earthquakes
Types
Causes
Characteristics
Measurement
Prediction
Other topics

An earthquake prediction is a prediction that an earthquake of a specific magnitude will occur in a particular place at a particular time (or ranges thereof).

One approach to predicting earthquakes is knowing what causes earthquakes and analyzing large amounts of historical data to create a mathematical model of the earth, or the region around a fault. This approach works well for weather forecasting and is called Numerical weather prediction. The theory of plate tectonics was born in the mid 1960s, and confirmed in the early 1970s, but measuring underground pressures and underground rock movement is more difficult and more expensive than measuring atmospheric pressure. (Compare the release of a weather balloon to the use of a drilling rig.) For well-understood faults the probability that a segment may rupture during the next few decades can be estimated. However, despite considerable research efforts by seismologists, scientifically reproducible predictions cannot yet be made to a specific day or month.

Identifying, detecting and then measuring some kind of phenomena is another approach. Possible precursors of earthquakes under investigation are seismicity, changes in the ionosphere, various types of EM (electromagnetic) precursors including infrared and radio waves, radon emissions, and even unusual animal behavior. The most promising at present is the change in the TEC (total electron content) for the ionosphere about an hour prior to an earthquake.

A number of satellites help with research into prediction. The GPS network for example is used to accurately measure ground movements. Other satellites have been designed and launched to look for Electromagnetic precursors.

The problem of earthquake prediction

In efforts to predict earthquakes, seismologists have investigated the association of an impending earthquake with such varied phenomena as seismicity patterns, crustal movements, ground water level in wells, radon or hydrogen gas emissions from the Earth, changes of seismic wave velocities, electromagnetic fields (seismo-electromagnetics), large-scale changes in soil temperature, and changes in ion concentration in the ionosphere. "Earthquake prediction: An overview" is a 2003 review by Hiroo Kanamori and the August 2010 issue of Pure and Applied Geophysics contains a collection of articles on the subject.

The mystery of earthquake occurrence frequently sparks people without scientific training into claiming that they have found the solution to the earthquake prediction problem. Discredited, fantastic theories of predicting earthquakes include weather conditions and unusual clouds, and the phases of the moon. These pseudoscientific theories and predictions ignore the requirement of rigorously formulating the hypothesis and to test it statistically.

Self-appointed prediction experts often resort to the technique of making vague statements, which they claim were correct predictions, after an earthquake has happened somewhere. Rudolf Falb's "lunisolar flood theory" is a typical example from the late 19th century.

International evaluation of claims and methods

The sub-commission for earthquake prediction of IASPEI (International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior) has reviewed claims of successful predictions and of proposed methods to predict during the 1990s. Their procedure was similar to reviews of proposals for research grants. Authors submitted their detailed research on the prediction problem. Anonymous reviewers commented, and members of the sub-commission discussed the merits of the proposal and of the reviewer’s comments.

A decision to place the claim into one of three categories (preliminary list of significant precursors, no decision, rejected) was then transmitted to the authors, who could write a reply, if they so wished. The entire exchange was then published, unless the authors did not agree to publication. Most of the nominated successful predictions and methods to predict were rejected. At that time, three methods seemed most promising: Seismicity patterns, ground water properties, and crustal deformations.

Attribution to a plausible physical mechanism lends credibility, and suggests a means for future improvement. Reproducibility and statistical analysis are used to distinguish predictions which come true due to random chance (of which a certain number are expected) versus those that have more useful predictive capability, and to validate models of long-term probability. Such models are difficult to test or validate because large earthquakes are so rare, and because earthquake activity is naturally clustered in space and time. "Predictions" which are made only after the fact are common but generally discounted.

Seismological society of America

According to the Seismological Society of America, for a statement to be accepted as a valid earthquake prediction, it has to contain the expected magnitude with error limits, the well defined area of the epicenter, the range of dates, and the probability of this to come true. The data from which the prediction was derived must be verifiable and the analysis of these data must be reproducible. Long term predictions (years to decades) are more likely to be achieved than medium term predictions (months to years), and short term predictions (hours to days) are in general unlikely to be possible, at present. If a plausible mechanism linking the observations with the predicted earthquake is not offered, the credibility of the prediction is diminished, but it may not necessarily be rejected. Evaluations of apparent successes must include a statistical estimate of the probability that the prediction came true by chance, which is often the case with predictions by amateurs. Whether a prediction is scientific or amateurish is not based on who makes the prediction, but based on how the prediction is made and tested. Predictions can be formulated either by defining the limits of the parameters probabilistically or by firm values.

National prediction evaluation councils

Official earthquake prediction evaluation councils have been established in California (the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council) and the federal government in the United States (the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council), but have yet to endorse any method of predicting quakes as reliable.

Unless the following parameters are specified, a statement does not qualify as an earthquake prediction:

  • A specific location or area
  • A specific span of time
  • A specific magnitude range
  • A specific probability of occurrence

Precursors

Measuring, recording and analyzing the past to predict the future.

Seismic activity

Generally, this is using patterns of activity from the past to predict the future. In 1969 Japanese seismologist Kiyoo Mogi proposed that there exists a precursory seismicity pattern before large earthquakes that has become known as the 'Mogi doughnut hypothesis'. He showed maps that suggested that major earthquakes tend to occur in seismically unusually calm areas surrounded by a ring of unusually high seismic activity. However, he did not back up his claim by statistical analyses that would have shown whether or not these patterns constituted a significant departure from normal.

Subsequently, several groups have separately tested with statistical methods the inside and the outside patterns. The idea that there sometimes exists a 'calm before the storm' is called the quiescence hypothesis, the idea of precursory increased activity in the ring outside is called the accelerated seismic moment release hypothesis.

Foreshocks are medium-sized earthquakes that precede major quakes. An increase in foreshock activity (combined with purported indications like ground water levels and strange animal behavior) enabled the successful evacuation of a million people one day before the February 4, 1975 M7.3 Haicheng earthquake

The Xiuyan M5.3 earthquake (29 November 1999) is another example where a successful prediction was issued, based on a correct interpretation of an earthquake swarm as foreshocks.

While 50% of major earthquakes are preceded by foreshocks, only about 5-10% of small earthquakes turn out to be foreshocks, leading to false warnings.

Emissions

The idea here is that if something unexpected leaks into the area around a fault line a quake is imminent or due. Emission of radon as a quake precursor was studied in the 1970s and 80s with no reliable results and continued to be dismissed by most seismologists. Radon was the cause of the recent 2009 L'Aquila earthquake controversy as mentioned below in European predictions. See also Radon

Electromagnetic precursors

This would be some kind of electromagnetic wave that would be detected prior to an earthquake happening.

TEC Variations: Variations in the expected levels of the TEC (total electron content) as detected by GPS in the hour preceding an earthquake look promising because an examination of historical data for several significant earthquakes indicates that prediction may be possible. Scientists do not yet understand the cause or the link between the ionosphere and what happens underground but there are plenty of stories, videos and some theories where aura or strange lights in the sky known as earthquake light appear in the sky above an earthquake zone immediately prior to or during an earthquake. One of the theories suggests changes to the ionosphere as a cause of earthquake light. Professor Kosuke Heki of Hokkaido University in Japan discovered by accident that GPS signals changed about 40 minutes before an earthquake and so he looked backwards at historical data for other earthquakes and found a correlation for other events. The race is now on to discover if this can be used to predict earthquakes before they happen and to find how earthquakes affect TEC variation.

Earthquake light: Unexpected lights in the sky known as earthquake light appear in the sky above an earthquake zone immediately prior to or during an earthquake. There are many reports of this and several suggestions for the cause but as yet, nothing has been proved as to why this happens. Currently this phenomena is not used for earthquake prediction in any systematic way.

Further information: Earthquake light

Triboluminescence: Sometimes called Fractoluminescence could in theory generate EM waves because of the high levels of friction in an earthquake. A number of theories have been proposed and various attempts have been made to measure or detect them but nobody is currently using Triboluminescence to predict earthquakes in a systematic or reliable way.

Further information: Triboluminescence

VAN method: is a controversial method of earthquake prediction proposed by Professors Varotsos, Alexopoulos and Nomicos in the 1980s; it was named after the researchers' initials. The method is based on the detection of "seismic electric signals" (SES) via a telemetric network of conductive metal rods inserted in the ground; it stems from theoretical predictions by P. Varotsos, a solid-state physicist at the National and Capodistrian University of Athens. First, VAN have claimed to be able to predict earthquakes of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece with a precursor time of 7 hours. Later the claim changed to being able to predict earthquake larger than magnitude 5, within 100 km of epicentral location, within 0.7 units of magnitude, and in a 2-hour to 11-day time window, but this is disputed.

Errors have been discovered in the list of earthquakes correlated according to Van with SES signals. VAN has claimed to have observed at a recording station in Athens a perfect record of a one-to-one correlation between SESs and all earthquakes of magnitude ≥ 2.9 which occurred 7 hours later in Greece. However, it was later shown that the list of earthquake used for the correlation was false. Although VAN stated in their article that the list of earthquakes was that of the Bulletin of the National Observatory of Athens it was found that 37% of the earthquakes actually listed in the bulletin, including the largest one, were not in the list used by VAN for issuing their claim. In addition, 40% of the earthquakes which VAN claimed had occurred were not in the NOA bulletin.

Objections have been raised that the physics of the claimed process is not possible. None of the earthquakes which Van claimed were preceded by SESs generated an SES themselves, which would have to be expected because the main shock disturbance in the Earth is much larger than any precursory disturbance. An analysis of the wave propagation properties of SESs in the Earth’s crust showed that it is impossible that signals with the amplitude reported by VAN could have been generated by small earthquakes and transmitted over the several hundred kilometers distances from the epicenter to the receiving station.

Several authors have pointed out that VAN’s publications are characterized by a lack of addressing the problem of eliminating the many and strong sources of change in the magneto-electric field measured by them, such as currents generated near their recording station in suburban Athens, and especially by a lack of statistical testing of the validity of their hypothesis. In particular, it was discovered that of the 22 claims of successful prediction by VAN 74% were false, 9% correlated at random and for 14% the correlation was uncertain.

Further information: VAN method

Low frequency sounds

Main article: Earthquake sensitive

An earthquake sensitive is a 'sensitive person' who follows the process of attempting to correlate or map perceived physiological symptoms (aka Endaural phenomena) to external natural events such as earthquakes. Anecdotal evidence suggests anywhere from 1 to 10+ percent of the population is capable of being a 'sensitive'. There are speculations that more persons who can hear or sense under 20 Hz waves (infrasonics) are in this category.

A study of "ear sounds" or "ear tones" over a long period has yielded a quantified rare (low probability) "sound" which appears to be precursory to Great Earthquakes to appear "somewhere" in the world. So strictly speaking, missing a predicted "location" makes this approach practically speaking useless (except for driving further related avenues of research). For example this method was used to make a successful short term earthquake forecast for a three day period ending 11 April 2012.

Animal behavior

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (March 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Animal behavior reports are often ambiguous and not consistently observed. In folklore, some animals, especially dogs, cats, chickens, horses, toads and other smaller animals, have been identified as being more able to predict earthquakes than others.

It has been postulated that the reported animal behavior before an earthquake is simply their response to an increase in low-frequency electromagnetic signals.

In Italy, findings from 2009 suggest that toads are able to detect pre-seismic cues. In the 2011 Virginia earthquake, animals at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. were reported to have sensed the Earthquake coming.

Earthquake prediction in the form of animal behavior can be dated as far back as 373 BC. It was believed that rats, weasels, snakes, and centipedes would flee their homes as early as a few days before a large earthquake. It is easy for us to explain how animals can predict earthquakes mere seconds before they occur, however their ability to predict earthquakes days before the occurrence is still debatable. Animals with more keen senses may be more likely than humans to notice the smaller P waves that occur before the S waves. We do understand that animals possess an instinctive response to stimuli in order to escape predators, and certain vertebrates have a sort of "early warning" behavior. It is possible that these instinctive responses and "early warning" behaviors could have evolved into something more: a system for evading seismic activity.

American seismologists are very skeptical on this topic. Although documented cases of odd animal behavior directly before an earthquake, the United States Geological Survey states that there can be no reproducible connection between seismic activity and animal behavior. Andy Michael, a geophysicist at USGS says, "Animals react to so many things—being hungry, defending their territories, mating, predators—so it's hard to have a controlled study to get that advanced warning signal." In the 1970s, the USGS conducted experiments on animal behavior in relation to earthquake prediction, however "nothing concrete came out of it." said Michael. The USGS has done no further experiments on this topic. Geologists dismiss this theory for the reason of the "Psychological focusing effect", which essentially states that people will only remember these strange behaviors due to the earthquake, or any other major occurrence. If not for the earthquake, these odd behaviors in animals would not be noted.

The largest earthquake to ever hit China occurred in Haiyuan County, Ninghsia Province, in 1920, with a magnitude of 8.5. Before the earthquake, eyewitnesses reported observing wolves running around in packs, sparrows flying wildly, as well as dogs barking in an unusual manner. In addition, prior to the 6.8 magnitude earthquake in Hsingtai County, Hopei Province of 1966, dogs in a village at the epicenter of the quake managed to escape their kennels and thus surviving the catastrophe. In 1969, a warning was issued at the Tientsin People's Park Zoo, just two hours before the earthquake struck. This warning was based upon odd behaviors in various animals in the zoo, including, but not limited to: giant pandas, deer, sharks, tigers, and yaks. Another report states that in 1976, a local stock breeder was tending to his animals, but instead of eating, the horses and mules were jumping and kicking furiously until they were able to break free and ran outside. Moments later, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck the area.

Triggered

Main article: Induced seismicity

Sometimes an earthquake has a trigger or direct cause. Mining (using shafts or fracking), nuclear testing, tunneling and dams are just a few of the ways that humans have triggered earthquakes. In some situations accurate predictions are possible. See the main article for further information.

Tides

There are two flavors of tidal stressing that have been claimed to generate enhanced rates of earthquakes—diurnal and biweekly Earth tides. The diurnal correlations would cause more earthquakes only during the hours when the tidal stress is pushing in an encouraging direction. In contrast, biweekly effects would be earthquakes occurring during the days when the sinusoidal stressing oscillations are largest. The former, as most easily observed in the twice-daily rise and fall of the ocean tides, have occasionally been shown to influence earthquakes (e.g., Cochran, Vidale and Tanaka (2004) shows there may be some weak tidal triggering of shallow, oceanic thrust-faulting earthquakes). The latter, which arises from the periodic alignment of the Sun and Moon, has often been claimed in the popular press to incubate earthquakes (sometimes termed the "syzygy" effect) and occasionally for small datasets in the scientific literature (e.g., Glaser (2003)), but generally such effects do not appear in careful studies of large datasets.

A paper written by researchers from Beijing Normal University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences found a significant relationship between tidal forces and earthquakes in China and Taiwan. The paper considered the relationship between 21 major earthquakes (Ms ≥ 7.0) in land and the offshore area of Taiwan island in the 20th century and the variance ratio of the lunar–solar tidal force. The result indicated that the time of these earthquakes is closely related to the variance ratio of the lunar–solar tidal force, and therefore that the tidal force possibly plays an important role in triggering earthquakes. The conclusion is this method may be used to help forecast earthquakes by studying the lunar perigee.

Syzygy, which is not given much credence in the scientific community, is motivated by the observation that, historically, there have been some great earthquakes whose timing coincides with tidal forces near their maximum. For maximum tidal force, three factors must coincide: first, when the moon (in its elliptical orbit) is closest to the earth; second, when it is within a day or two of a new moon (so that the tidal forces of the moon and sun are acting in concert); and third, when the earth (in its elliptical orbit) is at or near its closest distance to the sun.

Shallow earthquakes near mid-ocean ridges, volcanic earthquakes, and episodic tremor and slip have also been observed to sometimes correlate with the diurnal tides, with enhanced activity correlating with times that faults are unclamped.

Early warning

An earthquake warning system is a system of accelerometers, communication, computers, and alarms that is devised for regional notification of a substantial earthquake while it is in progress. Japan, Taiwan and Mexico all have earthquake early-warning systems.

In a paper in the journal Nature, Richard Allen of the University of California claims that the distinction between small and large earthquakes can be made from the very first seconds of seismic energy recorded by seismometers, though other scientists are not convinced. If correct this may make earthquake early warning (as distinct from prediction) more powerful. Earthquake early warning provides an alarm that strong shaking is due soon to arrive, and the more quickly that the magnitude of an earthquake can be estimated, the more useful is the early warning. However, earthquake early warning can still be effective without the ability to infer the magnitude of an earthquake in its initial second or two.

Satellite observations

The "Detection of Electro-Magnetic Emissions Transmitted from Earthquake Regions" satellite, constructed by CNES, has made observations which show strong correlations between certain types of low frequency electromagnetic activity and the most seismically active zones on the Earth, and have shown a sharp signal in the ionospheric electron density and temperature near southern Japan seven days before a 7.1 magnitude occurred there (on August 29 and September 5, 2004, respectively).

Quakesat is an earth observation nanosatellite based on 3 CubeSats. It was designed to be a proof-of-concept for collecting extremely low frequency earthquake precursor signals from space. The primary instrument is a magnetometer housed in a 2 foot (0.6 m) telescoping boom.

ESPERIA is an equatorial space mission mainly concerned with detecting any tectonic and preseismic related signals. More in general, it has been proposed for defining the near-Earth electromagnetic, plasma, and particle environment, and for studying perturbations and instabilities in the ionosphere-magnetosphere transition region. To study earthquake preparation processes and anthropogenic impacts in the Earth's surface, a phase A study has been realized for the Italian Space Agency.

The Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) radar satellite, which was canceled in the White House's 2012 budget proposal, would have the capacity to identify elastic strain in tectonic plates, combining L-band interferometric synthetic aperture radar and a multi-beam infrared lidar to detect strains in the Earth’s surface that could lead to serious earthquakes.

Russia and the United Kingdom have agreed to jointly deploy two satellites in 2015 that will measure electromagnetic signals that are released from the earth's crust prior to earthquakes. The project is said to be able to "help predict earthquakes and potentially save thousands of lives."

History of research programs

In the United States an earthquake prediction program was formulated in the mid 1960s and began to hold, jointly with Japan, earthquake prediction conferences, but there existed no serious research effort in the USA until 1977, when the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was initiated. Part of its original mandate was the development of earthquake prediction techniques and early-warning systems. However, the emphasis was shifted away from earthquake prediction in 1990, and toward mitigation of the damage, due to legislation co-sponsored by Senator Al Gore. In 1984, the Parkfield Prediction Experiment was launched. It failed to correctly predict the characteristic Parkfield earthquake on the San Andreas fault. In 1995, the National Academy of Sciences sponsored a colloquium, "Earthquake Prediction: The Scientific Challenge," which did not bring much new information about prediction.

In Japan, an earthquake prediction program was started in 1964 and a subsequent five-year plan was formulated by Rikitake. This program became focused in 1978 on predicting a magnitude 8 earthquake in the Tokai district, near Tokyo, which may become a major disaster for Japan, and the world economy, once it happens. Japan is now the best instrumented country in the world for recording seismic waves, crustal deformation, properties of ground water, and electro-magnetic transients, all as part of a massive effort to try to understand the earthquake generation process.

In China, it is the job of governmental seismological agencies to coordinate the research and its application to earthquake prediction. In 1956, China included earthquake prediction research as an important task in the 12-year national long-term plan for science and technology development (1956–1967). The State Seismological Bureau (SSB), now named the China Earthquake Administration (CEA), was established in 1970. The CEA is a governmental body responsible to the State Council, and required by the ‘‘Law of the People’s Republic of China on Protecting Against and Mitigating Earthquake Disasters’ to conduct Annual Consultation Meetings on Earthquake Prediction Research and Applications every January. In 1975, people were evacuated before the magnitude 7.3 Haicheng earthquake. This was claimed as a successful prediction, but was in fact a precautionary action initiated by leaders of the local government, reacting to hundreds of foreshocks, some of which damaged some buildings. Since then, several disastrous earthquakes which have not been predicted have ravaged China.

In Russia, the new program of development of earthquake prediction in Russia was designed by order of the President of the Russian Federation in 2004. It is targeted at increasing the reliability of long-, medium, and short-term forecasting of the earthquake potential, including tsunami prediction.

The program comprises:

  • building 11 integrated geophysical test sites;
  • deploying satellite telecommunication systems;
  • enlarging the database of prognostic information by including data received from aerospace Earth’s remote sensing devices, GPS observations and other geological and geophysical monitoring sources;
  • building and equipping a Seismological Information Center under the auspices of Geophysical Service RAS in Obninsk for collection and prompt transmission of monitoring and prognostic data on seismic events;
  • building and equipping a Coordination Center for Earthquake Prediction under the auspices of the Institute of Physics of the Earth RAS in Moscow;
  • creating 5 regional branches of Coordination Center for Earthquake Prediction;
  • developing high-performance algorithms and programs for seismic situation forecasting based on integrated seismological, geophysical, and aerospace data.

Seven test sites will be positioned in seismically active areas:

  1. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky,
  2. Klyuchevskoy,
  3. Sakhalin,
  4. South Baikal,
  5. Gorny Altai,
  6. Caucasian Mineral Waters,
  7. Sochi – Krasnaya Polyana.

Four test sites will be positioned in areas with abnormal high-level technogenic burden:

  1. Dagestan (on the base of Chirkey hydro power plant),
  2. Verkhnekamsk (on the base of Verkhnekamsk potassium salts deposit),
  3. Moscow (Russia’s largest, rapidly growing urban and industrial conglomerate),
  4. Kemerovo (Russia’s largest coal basin located in a seismic zone).

The eleven new and modernized test sites will perform:

  1. seismic observations using local networks and micro groups,
  2. GPS-surveillance of current Earth’s crust motions,
  3. seismic probing and surveys using vibratory energy sources,
  4. high-frequency seismic noise measurements,
  5. dipole electrical sounding with high-energy artificial sources,
  6. electrotelluric potential measurements,
  7. measurements of the Earth’s electro-magnetic field variations,
  8. tectonomagnetic and absolute magnetic measurements,
  9. laser deformation and pitch and roll measurements,
  10. hydro-geodynamic borehole monitoring,
  11. hydro-geochemical monitoring,
  12. continuous video monitoring of active volcanoes (Klyuchevskoy, Shiveluch, Bezymianny, and Avachinsky volcanoes in Kamchatka),
  13. integrated aerospace monitoring.

The main targets of the Coordination Center for Earthquake Prediction are:

  • analysis of the seismic potential in the Russian Federation and neighboring countries in a mode close to real time using prognostic algorithms;
  • expert assessment of current data and preparation of material for prognostic conclusions;
  • coordination of scientific research in the field of seismicity and seismic prediction, medium- and short-term in particular;
  • inter-regional and international exchange of data from seismological, geophysical, geodynamical and other prognostic observations;
  • performing expert assessments on seismic risk and its reduction on the instructions of scientific and technical committees for providing seismic safety under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation;
  • submitting prognostic conclusions on the seismic potential in Russia to the National Emergency Action Center of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergency Management and Natural Disasters Response.

Earthquake predictions and methods are reviewed by the Earthquake Forecast Advisory Council (FAC) of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN) and the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia (EMERCOM). Russia has an earthquake prediction program that has yielded some of the best tested hypotheses, but also some claims that are viewed with suspicion, internationally. Peter Bormann has presented a review of individual achievements and claims by Russian seismologists.

The Collaboratory of the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) is an international multi-institution effort, underway since 2005, to develop a peer-reviewed scientific testing platform and expert community to assess earthquake prediction and predictability.

History of prediction attempts

Asia

The Haicheng evacuation, China occurred after a series of foreshocks, some of which damaged buildings, local government leaders evacuated much of the populace before the devastating magnitude 7.3 1975 Haicheng earthquake. Although much discussion about the possibility of future earthquakes in NE China had taken place during the years preceding this earthquake, there was no prediction formulated that would have fit this event.

However, the Chinese government failed to predict the July 28, 1976 M7.8 Tangshan earthquake, which put Chinese earthquake prediction research in doubt for several years. In the late 1990s, there were over thirty false alarms unofficially announced in China.

In Xiuyan, China On November 29, 1999 an earthquake of magnitude 5.3 occurred at latitude 40.46 and longitude 122.89, near Xiuyan. On November 28, 1999, the Seismological Bureau of Liaoning Province (a branch of the China Seismological Bureau) issued a prediction with the following parameters.

  • Location: Within a square of 1 degree by 1 degree, centered at latitude 40.5 degrees and longitude 123 degrees.
  • Occurrence time: between 29 November and 8 December 1999.
  • Magnitudes: Between 5.0 and 5.9.

This means that the event was located only 10 km from the center of the specified area, occurred within the time window, and the magnitude range given. Thus, this was a correct prediction.

The research activities, which lead to this prediction started on November 9 because two magnitude 4 earthquakes occurred. Another two magnitude 4 earthquakes occurred on November 25, and on November 26 a magnitude 4.4 earthquake triggered the report by seismologists to the local government, stating "if the earthquake swarm keeps increasing, then a 5.5-6.0 earthquake is imminent; otherwise there would be a M6 earthquake expected to occur, but location cannot be sure (based on present data and knowledge)". The local government's decision was to deploy imminent works to enhance the preparedness, without issuing a prediction publicly. Because of this special deployment, there were no injuries and deaths during the earthquake, nor social panic before and after the earthquake.

In Japan, The Japanese government established the Imperial Earthquake Investigation Committee in 1892 in response to the Nobi (Mino-Owari) earthquake (1891) which caused significant damage in Japan.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Japanese government embarked on a major earthquake preparedness campaign, which some criticized as emphasizing prediction too much over mitigation. It failed to result in a prediction of the Great Hanshin earthquake which devastated the city of Kobe in 1995. See also 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.

North America

In Lima, USA an earthquake predicted by a scientist at the U.S. Bureau of Mines to occur on June 28, 1981, in Lima, Peru, failed to materialize. Despite being dismissed by the U.S. National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, the prediction caused popular fear and many left the city.

In New Madrid, USA in 1989 Iben Browning predicted a major earthquake in the New Madrid fault zone of southern Missouri and specified December 2 or 3, 1990, as the most likely days. This prediction was reported on extensively in the media and led to great community concern. No earthquake occurred on those days or thereafter.

The Parkfield, USA earthquake prediction was based on a history of regularly spaced earthquakes in the early 20th century, the USGS in 1985 began an experiment based on the predictions and published papers of Allan Lindh and W.H. Bakun of the USGS and T.V. McEvilly of the University of California at Berkeley. The goal was to predict a 6.0 magnitude earthquake near Parkfield, California.

"Bakun and Lindh summarized the state of the art in the Parkfield Prediction Experiment, and predicted that a moderate-size earthquake would occur at Parkfield between 1985 and 1993. Their prediction was unusual both in its precision (as to location, time and magnitude) and high degree of confidence (95% within the 9-year window). Bakun and Lindh (1985) also suggested that the predicted earthquake could produce extended rupture of the San Andreas fault to the southeast, possibly growing to magnitude 6.5 to 7.0."

Media attention focused on the prediction and the experiment. 122,000 pamphlets were mailed to residents of the Parkfield area, entitled "The Parkfield Earthquake Prediction." Despite the prediction, such an earthquake did not occur until after the end of the prediction window, in 2004.

Further information: Parkfield earthquake

The Loma Prieta, USA prediction was made after scientists in California mapped seismic activity from 1968 to 1988 on a cross section of the fault lines. They identified a "seismic gap" in the Loma Prieta area from various features of the regional seismicity. They therefore concluded that Loma Prieta was due for an earthquake. Smaller quakes several months beforehand were treated as possible foreshocks, but the warnings had expired by the date of the moment magnitude 6.9 quake, on 17 October 1989. American geologist, Jim Berkland,a proponent of the Seismic Window Theory, claims to have predicted the Loma Prieta earthquake on the San Andreas fault, but the mainstream scientific community does not endorse his techniques as repeatable, attributing his success with this earthquake partly to random chance.

Further information: 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake

In Southern California, USA, in early 2004, a group of scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, led by Dr. Vladimir Keilis-Borok, predicted that a quake similar in strength to the 6.5 magnitude San Simeon earthquake of 2003 would occur in a 12,000 square mile (31,100 km) area of Southern California by September of that year. The odds were given as 50/50.

In April 2004, the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (CEPEC) evaluated Keilis-Borok's prediction and reported to the California State Office of Emergency Services. CEPEC concluded that the "uncertainty along with the large geographic area included in the prediction (about 12,400 square miles) leads (us) to conclude that the results do not at this time warrant any special policy actions in California.” The predicted time window came and went with no significant earthquake.

Europe

In Italy, Italian technician Giampaolo Giuliani claims to have predicted the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. He had previously been reported to Italian police for "causing fear" but he was acquitted. Emission of radon as an earthquake precursor has been studied since the seventies, but the research has not resulted in successful prediction methods. The claim by Giuliani that he predicted the M6.3 L'Aquila earthquake of 6 April 2009 was investigated by the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting established by the Italian government, but was not substantiated in their report. Mr. Giuliani has never published any reports in peer reviewed scientific journals on his measurement methods, his analysis of the data, elimination of noise sources, and statistical correlation with earthquakes, something that would be required for taking prediction claims seriously. Mr. Giuliani presented his observations at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2009,.

Further information: 2009 L'Aquila earthquake

See also

References

  1. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region, 2003 to 2032, 2003, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/wg02/index.php.
  2. ^ Earthquake Prediction. Ruth Ludwin, U.S. Geological Survey. Cite error: The named reference "ludwin" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. "Could GPS be used to predict earthquakes?". BBC News. March 23, 2012.
  4. Kisslinger, C., McDonald, C. & Bowman, J.R. (1985). "Precursory time-space patterns of seismicity and their relation to fault processes in the central Aleutian Islands seismic zone". IASPEI, 23d general assembly, Tokyo, Japan. p. 32.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. Keilis-Borok, V.I., Knopoff, L., Rotwain, I. & Allen, C.R. (1988). "Intermediate term prediction of occurrence times of strong earthquakes". Nature. 335 (6192): 690–694. doi:10.1038/335690a0.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. Kisslinger, C. (1988). "An experiment in earthquake prediction and the 7 May 1986 Andreanof Islands earthquake". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 78 (1): 218–229.
  7. Jaume, S. & Sykes, L.R. (1999). "Evolving towards a critical point: A review of accelerating seismic moment/energy release prior to large and great earthquakes". Pageoph. 155 (4): 279–305. doi:10.1007/s000240050266.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. 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 (4): 187–196. Bibcode:1999PEPI..111..187K. doi:10.1016/S0031-9201(98)00159-9.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. Kossobokov, V. & Soloviev, A. (2008). "Forecast/prediction of extreme events: Fundamentals and prerequisites of verification". EUG General Assembly, Vienna. pp. EGU2008–A–07031.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. Sato, H. (1977). "Precursory Land Tilt prior to the Tonankai Earthquake of 1944". Some Precursors prior to Recent Great Earthquakes along the Nankai Trough. Vol. 25 (Suppl.). pp. 115–121. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  11. Mogi, K. (1984). "Temporal variation of crustal deformation during the days preceding a thrust-type great earthquake--The 1944 Tonankai earthquake of magnitude 8.1". Pure and Applied Geophysics. 122 (6): 765–780. Bibcode:1984PApGe.122..765M. doi:10.1007/BF00876383.
  12. Roeloffs, E.; et al. (1997). "Water level and strain changes preceding and following the August 4, 1985 Kettleman Hills, California, earthquake". Pure and Applied Geophysics. 149: 21–60. doi:10.1007/BF00945160.
  13. Tsunogai, U. & Wakita, H. (1995). "Precursory chemical changes in ground water: Kobe earthquake, Japan". Science. 269 (5220): 61–63. doi:10.1126/science.269.5220.61. PMID 17787705.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. Wakita, H. (1996). Earthquake chemistry II, collected papers, edn. Vol. II. Laboratory for Earthquake Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo.
  15. Talwani; et al. (1971). "Prediction of an earthquake at Blue Mountain lake (needs completion)". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  16. Fraser-Smith, A.C., Bernardi, A., McGill, P.R., Ladd, M.E., Helliwell, R.A. & Villard Jr., O.G. (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.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ De Swaaf, Kirt (March 22, 2011). "Da rumort es ständig im Untergrund", Interview with Pier Francesco Biagi". Der Standard.
  18. Kanamori, Hiroo (2003). Earthquake prediction: An overview (PDF). International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology. Vol. 81B. International Association of Seismology & Physics of the Earth's Interior. pp. 1205–1216.
  19. <Please add first missing authors to populate metadata.> (2010). Pure and Applied Geophysics. 167 (8–9). Springer. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  20. "Earthquake prediction: Gone and back again". Earth magazine (confirmation of partial list). 7 Apr 2009.
  21. Alden, Andrew. "The Bogeyman of Earthquake Prediction". Geology.about.com. Retrieved February 25, 2011.
  22. Matthew A. Mabey, Assistant Professor of Geology, Brigham Young University. "The Charlatan Game".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. M. Wyss, ed. (1991). Evaluation of Proposed Earthquake Precursors. American Geophysical Union Monograph. p. 94.
  24. M. Wyss and R. Dmowska, ed. (1997). Earthquake Prediction - State of the Art. Basel: Birkhaeuser. p. 264.
  25. M. Wyss and D. C. Booth (1997). "The IASPEI procedure for the evaluation of earthquake precursors". Geophysical Journal International. 131 (3): 423–424. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06587.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  26. M. Wyss (1997). "Second round of evaluations of proposed earthquake precursors". Pageoph. 149: 3–16. doi:10.1007/BF00945158.
  27. Allen, C.R. (1976). "Responsibilities in earthquake prediction". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 66 (6): 2069–2074.
  28. Mogi, K. (1969). "Some features of recent Seismic activity in and near Japan (2), Activity before and after great earthquakes". Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo. 47: 395–417.
  29. "The Mogi Donut". Alaska Science Forum. July 9, 1979-07-07. Retrieved 2011-03-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  30. Peter M. Shearer and Guoqing Lin (2009-01-30). "Evidence for Mogi doughnut behavior in seismicity preceding small earthquakes in southern California". Journal of Geophysical Research. 114 (B01318). Bibcode:2009JGRB..11401318S. doi:10.1029/2008JB005982. Retrieved 2011-03-18.
  31. <Please add first missing authors to populate metadata.> (2010-07-18). "Mogi Donut - There's a hole in this possible earthquake pattern". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2011-03-18.
  32. Habermann, R.E. (1988). "Precursory Seismic quiescence: Past, present and future". Pageoph. 126 (2–4): 279–318. Bibcode:1988PApGe.126..279H. doi:10.1007/BF00879000.
  33. Wyss, M.; Habermann, R. E.; Bodin, P.; Kisslinger, Carl; Burford, R. O.; Klein, F. W.; Johnson, A. C.; Fu, Zhengxiang (1997). "Nomination of precursory seismic quiescence as a significant precursor". Pure and Applied Geophysics. 149: 79–114. doi:10.1007/BF00945162.
  34. Varnes, D.J. (1989). "Predicting earthquakes by analyzing accelerating precursory seismic activity". Pageoph. 130 (4): 661–686. Bibcode:1989PApGe.130..661V. doi:10.1007/BF00881603.
  35. Sykes, L.R. & Jaume, S.C. (1990). "Seismic activity on neighboring faults as a long-term precursor to large earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay area". Nature. 348 (6302): 595–599. doi:10.1038/348595a0.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  36. "Earthquake Prediction: Haicheng, China - 1975".
  37. ^ Xu, X. T. (2000) Some comments on the successful prediction of Xiuyan-Haicheng earthquake, Seismological Research of Northeast China, 16(2), 79?C81 (in Chinese). Cite error: The named reference "Xu" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  38. ^ Zhang, S. D. ed. (2004) The 1999 Xiuyan-Haicheng, Liaoning, M5.4 Earthquake, Beijing: Seismological Press (in Chinese).
  39. "Expert: Earthquakes Hard To Predict. All Things Considered". 6 Apr 2009.
  40. "Can Scientists Predict When Quakes Will Strike?".
  41. Kosuke Heki, Ionospheric electron enhancement preceding the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake, Geophysical Research Letters, V. 38, L17312, 5 PP., 2011 doi:10.1029/2011GL047908 abstract
  42. BBC News
  43. P. Varotsos, K. Alexopoulos, K. Nomicos and M. Lazaridou (1986). "Earthquake prediction and electric signals". Nature. 322 (6075): 120. doi:10.1038/322120a0.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  44. 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.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  45. Wyss, M. (1996). "Inaccuracies in seismicity and magnitude data used by Varotsos and coworkers". Geophysical Research Letters. 23 (11): 1299–1302. Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1299W. doi:10.1029/95GL03545.
  46. Bernard, P. (1992). "Plausibility of long distance electrotelluric precursors to earthquakes". Journal of Geophysical Research. 97: 17531–17546. Bibcode:1992JGR....9717531B. doi:10.1029/92JB01215.
  47. Bernard, P. & LeMouel, J.L. (1996). "On electrotelluric signals". A critical review of VAN. London: Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific. pp. 118–154.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  48. Mulargia, F. & Gasperini, P. (1992). "Analyzing the statistical validity of earthquake precursors. An application to the "VAN" method". Geophysical Journal International. 110: 32–44.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  49. Mulargia, F. & Gasperini, P. (1996). "Behind VAN: Tectonic stress changes or earthquake induced alertness?". A critical review of VAN. London: Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific. pp. 244–249.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  50. 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.
  51. Yan Y. Kagan (1997). "Special section-assessment of schemes for earthquake prediction; Are earthquakes predictable?" (PDF). Geophysical Journal International. 131: 505–525.
  52. Varotsos, P. & Lazaridou, M. (1991). "Latest aspects of earthquake prediction in Greece based on seismic electric signals". Tectonophys. 188 (3–4): 321–347. doi:10.1016/0040-1951(91)90462-2.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  53. Wyss, M. & Allmann, A. (1996). "Probability of chance correlations of earthquakes with prediction in areas of heterogeneous seismicity rate: the VAN case". Geophysical Research Letters. 22: 1307–1310. Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1307W. doi:10.1029/95GL03548.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  54. Incoming Mag. 7.8+ great quake, 8-11 Apr 2012 ??? (HIT x 2 : Magnitude 8.6 and 8.2 - OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA 2012 April 11 08:38 and 10:43:09 UTC) (This signal appeared prior to a Mw 8.3 event and occurs "rarely".)
  55. M. Ikeya (2004). Earthquakes and Animals. Singapore: World Scientific. ISBN 981-238-591-6.
  56. Toads can 'predict earthquakes' and seismic activity, BBC Earth News, March 31, 2010... Retrieved on March 31, 2010.
  57. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/animals-sense-earthquakes-14375060
  58. "Animals & Earthquake Prediction." U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program. US Department of the Interior, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/animal_eqs.php>.
  59. Mott, Maryann. "Can Animals Sense Earthquakes?" Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines | National Geographic News. National Geographic News, 11 Nov. 2003. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html>.
  60. "The Use Of Animals In Earthquake Prediction." Jeff Rense Program. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://www.rense.com/general61/use.htm>.
  61. E. S. Cochran and J. E. Vidale and S. Tanaka (2004). "Earth tides can trigger shallow thrust fault earthquakes". Science. 306 (5699). Science: 1164–1166. doi:10.1126/science.1103961. PMID 15498971.
  62. John H. Glaser; Bryan, Charles; Xu, Huifang; Gao, Huizhen (2003). "Tidal correlations of seismicity". Geology: Online Forum - Breathing of the seafloor. 31 (5). The Geological Society of America: e3. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2003)031<0387:NGRAMT>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0091-7613. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  63. Juan Zhao, Yanben Han and Zhian Li (2000). "Variation of Lunar-Solar Tidal Force and Earthquakes in Taiwan Island of China". Earth, Moon, and Planets. 88 (3 / June, 2000). Springer Netherlands: 123–129. doi:10.1023/A:1016571114719. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  64. Rachel Abercrombie (November 9, 2005). "The start of something big?". Nature. 438 (7065): 171–3. doi:10.1038/438171a. PMID 16281022.
  65. "Satellite défilant du CNES (France)". Archived from the original on 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-10-22. Template:Fr
  66. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2v4612216741003/
  67. Simons, Mark, "Budget Cuts and the Next Earthquake", Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2011
  68. Morring Jr., Frank, "Funding Uncertainty Shaping NASA Programs", Aviation Week, Mar 28, 2011
  69. "Russian, British scientists eye satellites to predict earthquakes", AHN, February 22, 2011
  70. Press F. (Chairman) (1965), “Earthquake prediction—a proposal for a ten-year program of research”, Office of Science and Technology, Ad-hoc Panel on Earthquake Prediction, Washington, DC, 39 pp
  71. Scholz, C., "What Ever Happened to Earthquake Prediction? Geotimes, Vol 17, March 1997
  72. NEHRP website
  73. Mervis, Jeffrey, Earthquake Scientists Hope That Recent Rumblings Will Lead To More Funding, The Scientist, April 2, 1990
  74. Bakun, W.H.; Lindh, A.G. (1985). "The Parkfield, California, earthquake prediction experiment". Science. 229 (4714): 619–624. doi:10.1126/science.229.4714.619. PMID 17739363.
  75. Roeloffs, E.; Langbein, J. (1994). "The earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield, California". Reviews of Geophysics. 32 (3): 315–335. Bibcode:1994RvGeo..32..315R. doi:10.1029/94RG01114.
  76. Knopoff, L (1996). "Earthquake prediction: the scientific challenge". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93 (9): 3719–20. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.9.3719. PMC 39427. PMID 11607655. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  77. ^ Bormann, Peter (2010). "From Earthquake Prediction Research to Time-Variable Seismic Hazard Assessment Applications". Pure and Applied Geophysics. 168: 329. doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0114-0.
  78. Rikitake, T. (1966). "A five year plan for earthquake prediction research in Japan". Tectonophysics. 3: 1–15. doi:10.1016/0040-1951(66)90021-7.
  79. Japan Meteorological Survey (1991), “Earthquake and tsunami monitoring and counter measures”, 27 pp.
  80. Wu, Z. L.; Liu, J.; Zhu, C. Z.; Jiang, C. S.; Huang, F. Q. (2007). "Annual consultation on the likelihood of earthquakes in continental China: its scientific and practical merits". Earthquake Research China. 21 (4): 365–371.
  81. Zhang, G.; Liu, J.; Shi, Y. (2002). "A scientific evaluation of annual earthquake prediction ability". Acta Seismologica Sinica. 15 (5): 5. doi:10.1007/s11589-002-0024-z.
  82. Chen, Y. T., Wu, Z. L., and Xie, L. L., “National centennial report on seismology and physics of the Earth’s interior: seismology in China in the 20th century”, In International Handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, (eds. Lee, W. H. K., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P. C., and Kisslinger, C.) (Academic Press, on Handbook CD-ROM, 2002).
  83. Wu, K.-T., Yue, M.-S., Wu, H.-Y., Chao, S.-L., Chen, H.-T., Huang, W.-O., Tien, K.-Y. & Lu, S.-D., (1991). Certain characteristics of the Haicheng earthquake (M=7.3) sequence in: Evaluations of Proposed Earthquake Precursors. in AGU Monograph, pp. 12-14, ed. Wyss, M
  84. Wang, K.; Qi-; Chen, Fu; Sun, Shihong; Andong (1975). "Haicheng Earthquake". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 96 (757–795): 2006.
  85. Chen, Q.-F.; Wang, K. (2010). "The 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake and Earthquake Prediction in China". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 100 (5B): 2840–2857. doi:10.1785/0120090314.
  86. Laverov N.P. et al. The Proposals of development and modernization of seismological system and earthquake prediction. Problems of National Safety. Moscow, Nauka, 2008, P. 206-232. (in Russian)
  87. Wang K., Qi-, Chen Fu, Sun Shihong, Wang Andong (2006). "Predicting the 1975 Haicheng Earthquake". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 96 (3): 757–795. Bibcode:2006BuSSA..96..757W. doi:10.1785/0120050191.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  88. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/earthquake/
  89. "海城岫岩地震预测准确 (Roughly: Prediction of Youyan, Haicheng Earthquake was precise)". People's Daily. December 6, 1999. Archived from the original on 2006-07-27. Retrieved 2006-10-22. Template:Zh icon
  90. R.J.Geller, Without progress no funding, Nature debates, 18 May 1999
  91. What Ever Happened to Earthquake Prediction? by Christopher Scholz. March 1997.
  92. http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/1fe-7d9-4-7
  93. Official Press Release of Parkfield Earthquake Prediction
  94. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/parkfield/scibasis.php
  95. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/parkfield/statuspolicy.php
  96. CEPEC Keeps Eye On Earthquake Predictions
  97. California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (2002). "Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-10-22. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  98. http://www.repubblica.it/ultimora/24ore/TERREMOTO-GIULIANI-PROSCIOLTO-DA-PROCURATO-ALLARME/news-dettaglio/3743013
  99. Jordan, T. H., Y.-T. Chen, P. Gasparini, R. Madariaga, I. Main, W. Marzocchi, G. Papadopoulos, G. Sobolev, K. Yamaoka, and J. Zschau (2009). Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Implementation. Findings and Recommendations of the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection, released by the Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Rome, Italy, 2 October 2009.
  100. Lewis, Aidan (April 6, 2009). "Row over Italian quake 'forecast'". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
  101. Giuliani, G G, Giuliani, R, Totani, G, Eusani, G, Totani, F, 2009, “Radon observations by Gamma Detectors “PM-4 and PM-2” during the seismic period (January - April 2009) in L’Aquila Basin”, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U14A-03.

Further reading

External links

Categories: