It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Help Me Solve A Mystery : Earthquake Prediction

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:15 PM
Many years ago, I came across this website. Screenshot provided , link below with many other links.

The program ended , I guess around 2012 ?

It involves an algorithm that predicts earthquakes.

Global M8-MSc Intermediate-Term Predictions The list of the regions where predictions are being made together with the magnitude range of the earthquakes we aim to predict. In the experiment we aim at prediction of magnitude 8 and above earthquakes in 262 circles of investigation, CI’s, each of 667-km radius. Their locations, i.e. coordinates of their centers, are listed in Table 1. The CI’s are set along seismic belts Figure 1 with a near-uniform step and cover all the areas on the Earth where the M8 algorithm could run in its original version that requires annual rate of activity of 16 or more mainshocks Figure 2a. We will also consider predictions of magnitude 7.5 and above earthquakes in 180 CI’s, each of 427-km radius. Their locations, i.e. coordinates of their centers, are listed in Table 2. As in case of magnitude 8, the CI’s are set along seismic belts Figure 1 and cover all the areas on the Earth where the original version of M8 algorithm could run to predict magnitude 7.5+ earthquakes Figure 2b. Note: This is an extension of the Test of M8 in Circum Pacific (Healy et al., 1992): all the parameters of the algorithms including the locations of CI’s remain the same as they were set in 1990. The Mw magnitudes not reported in the NEIC Hypocenters Data Base before 1993 are not considered. The Test of M8 extended to the Alpine-Hymalayan seismic belt. Furthermore, we now aim at prediction of both M7.5+ and M8.0+ earthquakes and include additional analysis of each alarm by the MSc algorithm.

I know, very technical. But any imput would be helpful.

www.mitp.ru...

Maybe the reason for it.

Italian Seismologists Convicted Of Manslaughter

4:32 DOWNLOAD TRANSCRIPT October 23, 20123:00 PM ET Heard on All Things Considered Melissa Block talks with Thomas Jordan, director of the Southern California Earthquake Center. He was tapped by the Italian government to investigate the events surrounding the tragic 2009 earthquake in the city of L'Aquila, which left more than 300 people dead. The Italian government convicted seven prominent earthquake experts of manslaughter on Monday for not adequately warning the public about the quake ahead of time. The head of Italy's disaster body has resigned in protest against the prison sentences.

www.npr.org...

edit on 24-9-2018 by Groot because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:33 PM
Yes it can be done... and you answered your own question as to why it isn’t anymore...

This is “fake science” now and “global warming” is still “real”... go figure... 🤨

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:36 PM

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:37 PM
If you are into earthquakes there is something else you might want to look into. Some time ago, there was a big earthquake in Tehran and I remember looking at the global map of earthquakes and there was a VERY odd trend of quakes that were all 6km deep, and they were fairly big. There were thousands of them, i'd say maybe 95% of the quakes. It seemed that they were artificial IMO, especially if they were all at the same depth.

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:51 PM

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
If you are into earthquakes there is something else you might want to look into. Some time ago, there was a big earthquake in Tehran and I remember looking at the global map of earthquakes and there was a VERY odd trend of quakes that were all 6km deep, and they were fairly big. There were thousands of them, i'd say maybe 95% of the quakes. It seemed that they were artificial IMO, especially if they were all at the same depth.

Hmm, interesting. I remember that quake.

Alot of times a major quake will set off smaller ones across the globe, like ringing a bell.

But, at the same depths? Maybe the waves from that quake traveled at a certain depth.

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:57 PM

originally posted by: SwissMarked
Yes it can be done... and you answered your own question as to why it isn’t anymore...

This is “fake science” now and “global warming” is still “real”... go figure... 🤨

Well, it is the popular opinion and gets funding were as earthquake prediction is still a pseudo science as perceived by the general scientific community. You would think earthquake prediction would be more important.

posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 02:43 PM

originally posted by: Groot
Many years ago, I came across this website. Screenshot provided , link below with many other links.

...
I know, very technical. But any imput would be helpful.
It depends on how picky you are about the parameters for the predictions, to determine whether the predictions are accurate or not. Here are some predictions which are true and probably always will be:
-There is a 100% chance of an earthquake today
-There will be a M4 of greater earthquake somewhere in the US sometime in the next 30 days.

See what's wrong with those predictions? They will come true but they aren't very specific. When they try to get specific that's when they seem to fall apart.

Look at your link for the Tohoku earthquake prediction. The alert ran apparently from mid 2010 to early 2011 which isn't a specific date to begin with, it's over 6 months! Then look at the coverage, the red blocks cover almost half of Japan, and also a lot of surrounding ocean, so the location also was not very specific. So even if the earthquake had happened somewhere in that huge area covering half of Japan and over that long time period over half a year, one would still have to say the prediction was general and not specific, and even that general prediction wasn't met. An Earthquake happened in March 2011 after the alert was called off in January, so even the very general prediction was a failure since the broad time period was still missed.

A prediction requires three things:

"1) the date and time, 2) the location, and 3) the magnitude."
Can you predict earthquakes?

Yes, some people say they can predict earthquakes, but here are the reasons why their statements are false:

They are not based on scientific evidence, and earthquakes are part of a scientific process. For example, earthquakes have nothing to do with clouds, bodily aches and pains, or slugs.
They do not define all 3 of the elements required for a prediction.
Their predictions are so general that there will always be an earthquake that fits; such as, (a) There will be a M4 earthquake somewhere in the U.S. in the next 30 days. (b) There will be a M2 earthquake on the west coast of the U.S. today.

If an earthquake happens to occur that remotely fits their prediction, they claim success even though 1-3 of the predicted elements is wildly different than what occurred, therefore a failed prediction.
So yes you can predict them if your predictions are general enough. My predictions will come true, but aren't very useful because they are too general.

If the predictions are more specific, they usually fail, look at the Tohoku example in your link. Someone might say "but the earthquake happened", but remember the prediction area was already huge and so was the time period, and it didn't even happen within the predicted time period so the prediction failed. Any prediction can be claimed to be true if you keep endlessly expanding the criteria for accepting it as a successful prediction, which is what a lot of the con artists claiming to make earthquake predictions try to do.

new topics

top topics

2