Talk:Earthquake prediction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Earthquakes
Portal:Earthquakes
Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Earthquakes, a project to systematically present information on earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale for WikiProject Earthquakes.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
Help with this template

I'll put the external links in later. This is a controversial topic and there are sooo many! Zeizmic 14:18 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] History of Earthquake Prediction

I made some MAJOR edits to this page to clean it up and simplify it for the average reader. This is an encyclopedia afterall, not a classroom text. I also felt a lot of the stock market information did not contribute much to this article. If one would like it put back in, I suggest a massive rewrite to clarify it.

I think a new section entitled "The History of Earthquake Prediction" would be pretty nice to have. Detailing ancient Chinese observations on how animals acted (and how they met with both success and failure at using this method) and onward to modern predictions (Japan/Taiwan, Parkfield, Dr. K-B, modeling they are doing at UC Davis). RockBandit 07:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy in trying to predict earthquakes.

I removed the following:

For example the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger during a cold weather launch would not be the sort of scientific experiment that one would want to "repeat" as many times as necessary to be "sure" before taking action or drawing conclusions. In such a case, a single data point is more than sufficient to draw conclusions thereby.

I think it really has nothing to do with this article and the way it is written is especially confusing. It is my opinion that we should leave it out, especially since it really doesn't contribute to the article in a meaningful way.

I also think the ending of this section should be rewritten somehow when talking about controversy in trying to predict earthquakes. RockBandit 07:21, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earthquake Prediction: Chinese

according to this article [1] and the "Early warnings" section of the article "Tangshan earthquake", predictions saved thousands of Chinese. Which was good. This article[2] described how did they issue warnings.--Skyfiler 15:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Excepting one web-page that was published after the Sechuan earthquake, are there any solid references that there was any sort of 'less-than-vague' prediction? The one 'solid' reference is extremely vague, i.e. "within a year (2008.5-2009.4) should pay attention to the south of Lanzhou, Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai may occur near the junction 6 -7-Level earthquake". It's a huge area and a long time scale to be a 'prediction' of any worth. Fremsley (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cut from article

I cut this from the article (by 195.96.232.207 dated 24 August 2005):

It is not true that the earthquakes are random geologic events without cycles or patterns. All in the NATURE is determined and only our limited knowledge is a reson to state about earthquakes unpredictables. Let us remember the Black Body problem, Plank formulae and Quantum Mechanics of Hidrogen Atom. Let us remember that many people stated that it is not possible to fly in the atmosphere, to fly in a space, to visit a Moon.
Please, visit for more explanations and examples the site Earthquake Prediction Using Reliable Earthquake Precursors- http://theo.inrne.bas.bg/~mavrodi/.

Rl 14:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good State

I just reviewed this article and think it is a state ready for the printer. :) --Zeizmic 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earthquake rules

Just a note for your evidence:

Earthquakes, at least some, indicate high coincidence with sextil (60°), trigon (120°), kvintil (72°) or other aspectation of Neptune with other planet, and possibly sextil (60°) of Venus with other planet, being combined and empowered by other aspects... Could you believe that anything happens at random?

The earthquake power comes from tectonic plates, but something must shake them first, be it a volcano or gravity resonance between planets. And shorthand prediction by cloud shapes and bird flight is not that bad idea, since the clouds are directed by moon & planet gravity resonance also... One cannot predict area, where earthquake strikes, but birds do feel it...


This is not my original invention, i have already read this in a calendary by Maria Thun ...


But what would be the earthquake date prediction good for? What would help knowing the date? Fear at every possible place, watching birds and clouds... These aspectations happen more times per year, and not all yield the measurable earthquakes...

Semi Psi 12:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following sentence. Which man ? When ? How ?

There is a man in southern California who keeps track of missing cats and dogs reported in his local newspaper. Approximately 7.5 times more animals go missing about a week before a major earthquake. This man has issued earthquake warnings based on this with about 75% accuracy.

[edit] wrong sentence

In Controversy in trying to predict earthquakes there's the sentence:

It is called The Earthquake Weather Project, a web-based held beliefs mentioned above, no doubt adding to the controversy surrounding earthquake prediction.

Something is wrong with this sentence - someone who knows the history of the page or is willing to look it up might want to correct this. Boud 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John McCloskey's Earthquake Forecast

John McCloskey forecast correctly a 28 March 2005 earthquake registering 8.7 on the Richter scale that shook Sumatra, just south of the epicenter of the 2004 Boxing Day earthquake. His team the the University of Ulster used finite element analysis to map stress reorganization after the Boxing Day earthquake. His prediction was first publicised at the Irish Geological Research Meeting on the 20 February 2005, which I attended. He said that an Earthquake was imminent south of the Boxing Day earthquake's epicenter and that it would happen within a year. He also gave a good estimate of the earthquakes magnitude (8-8.5). In rare cases, after a large earthquake, a forecast indicating aftershocks on specific faults and fault segments can be made using finite element analysis. It is likely that these techniques will improve.

Here is John's prediction published in Nature [3] on the 16th March 2005 and a BBC news story [4]. -Diamonddavej 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the summary above. There's nothing in the Nature article nor the news story about an M8+ nor 1 year. McKloskey said ""The huge changes in stress mean that I am comfortable talking about a significant increase in the risk of another quake. But that is as far as I am prepared to go," Professor McCloskey told the BBC News website." He also mentioned two or three other faults with similar increased chances of earthquakes. He simply says the chance of future quakes are increased, which is true around any large earthquake. He further identifies a set of faults which were particularly stressed, and one did have an earthquake, which is notable, but not a specific prediction. (John 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Earthquake early warning

A subject touched on at the end of the article is earthquake early warning. This is has been receiving quite a lot of attention in the past few years. There really should be a seperate heading. Before I make the edit and add to it, does anyone object, as it strictly isn't earthquake prediction? Joeski McLoeski 10:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea, many people are confused between the extreme difficulty of predicting earthquakes and the simple physics of measuring an earthquake to tell how the elastic waves already generated will spread to cause damage. I think you should clearly cross-link the topics of prediction and early warning so that people who are confused can easily get on the right track. (John 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Recent entries

The first part of the article now reads like an advertisement for someone attempting to shill a product. Needs rewriting. 24.17.171.84 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article looks objective to me now. Maybe someone has fixed it since this complaint (John 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Anon material removed

I removed material from Earthquake warning system that I thought had inappropriate tone and unreferenced technical speculation. Additional material of a similar nature was inserted in this Earthquake prediction by the same contributor so I also removed this. These were contributions by 12.65.192.128 at 12:54 25 August 2007 and earthquake warning system 12.65.216.70 at 20:25 and 20:42 25 August 2007, same style for both IP addresses. Interestingly, it turns out that despite the massive churn in this lengthly interval there appear to be no meaningful contributions since then. Please check my work to confirm this. Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog

Sollog is a notable quake predictor and should therefore be included in this article.Arnold1 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sparrows remained outside on the ground after dark the evening before the 1999 Taiwan quake

My wife, Deng Yingyu says the sparrows refused to return to their nests at her school the evening before the 1999 Taiwan earthquake. Just sitting around on the ground and other surfaces outside in the dark, not afraid of people.

Just wanted to let you know. Jidanni (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)