It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

4.8 EQ California...Was ATS Member Correct?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:06 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

But even predicting the date of an Earthquake within a decade isn't possible yet. The reason why is understandable, there are too many nuanced variables.

Well, you might be surprised by a few things to be found in this older thread of mine.

Specifically to the point of accuracy of scientific earthquake prediction: this google scholar search should provide plenty of material for perusal.

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Maybe you should read them. This is the kind of stuff I see in your link:

By using the calibrated equations developed for the study area and taking into account the occurrence time and magnitude of the last main shocks in each seismogenic source, the time-dependent conditional probabilities of occurrence P(∆t) of the next main shocks during next 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years as well as the magnitude of the expected main shocks (M f) have been estimated. The immediate probability (within next 10 years) of a large main shock is estimated to be high and moderate (>35 %) in all regions except zones 9 (M f = 5.8) and 15 (M f = 6.1).
They aren't predicting any dates within a decade, they are just assigning probabilities within a decade, which is what I was saying.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
To be honest, even getting down to one month in predicting the timing of such an event would lead me to consider some validity to the prediction.
There's a science to evaluating the accuracy of earthquake predictions, described here:

Evaluating the results of testing algorithms for prediction of earthquakes
edit on 11-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:41 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

And this one?

The 11 April 2012, M8.6 and M8.2 earthquakes OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA did confirm an alarm TIP reported in January, in the regular 2010a Update of the M8-MSc predictions of the Global Test of M8 (Healy et al. 1992; password protected URL; yellow outline in the attached figure). The earthquake epicenters missed the reduced area of alarm (red outline) diagnosed in the second approximation due to inapplicability of the MSc algorithm outside bulk distribution of seismic activity. Nevertheless, it appears remarkable that the reduced area is about the same as the area of the 11 April 2012 first-day aftershocks located at about the same latitudes.
emphasis mine


Additionally, any of the ones listed on the "Predictions" tab to be found on this site.
edit on 11-4-2015 by jadedANDcynical because: more

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:49 AM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
See the paper cited in my previous post.

The Earthquake wasn't where it was predicted to be.

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 11:49 AM

originally posted by: chrismir
In the mean while, 150 dolphins beached in Japan.

That happened just before the Fukushima quake and the Christchurch quake as well. Though the timing and location is off, something might be afoot here nevertheless.

There is a quake of magnitude 6.0 or greater somewhere in the world every 2.4 days.

So if you're going to be flexible on timing and location (and presumably magnitude as well) it won't be hard to claim a connection to something.

I guess I should give him credit for posting his prediction but it didn't happen. Predicting earthquakes is just personally annoying to me as there are so many it's easy to come up with hits especially when you start widening the goalposts as always happens.

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 12:58 PM
a reply to: jude11

4.8 vs 8.3 or whatever it was......NO. It is common for California to get smaller quakes like this...Right? I am no expert but this is not a larger quake.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in