reply to post by SPACE CADET
Medication can knock you about pretty bad. I've had this problem myself in the past and it can be a rotten feeling and very hard to work out what's
wrong. It could also be that you've just picked up a bug or something.
Hugs to you, my friend. Hope all goes well for you.
The above message takes precedence so I put it in first.
Now I'd like to note some follow-up to my prediction for a quake in Greece, posted
on Jan 15, 2010.
As I stated in the above post, I was expecting a quake of mag 6 or greater within 5 days of the post -- that is, by Jan 20.
No such magnitude 6-plus quake occurred in that region, and this is fortunate for the people who live there. So, from the perspective of purely
technical precision, my prediction missed. However, there was a mag 5.0 quake near Rhodes on Jan 17 (listed as a 4.9 by USGS and a 5.0 by the regional
EMSC), and a series of three quakes of mag 5 or greater in the Corinth(ian) Gulf region of Greece from Jan 18 to Jan 22. (Note: I understand it should
be "Corinthian" -- that being the adjective of Corinth -- but the EMSC just calls it "Corinth".)
Here is where things get interesting. In following posts after my initial one that contained the prediction I provided some data to show the
likelihood of a mag 5.0 or greater quake anywhere in Greece in a given period. They average about 1 per month, and so to have 4 of them in under a
week is very unusual. I gave my opinion some days ago that it was actually a very significant series of seismic events.
In fact, even the EMSC sees this Corinth(ian) Gulf activity as significant and important. A link on their home page entitled
Important seismic activity in Corinth Gulf (Greece), January
takes you to a special page which begins:
Seismic activity in Corinth Gulf (Greece) in January 2010
Since 18th January 2010, the Corinth region is experiencing an important seismic activity with more than 130 earthquakes of magnitude spanning from
2.5 to 5.3 in less than 5 days.
This special page goes on to give more details about the region and also has several maps, some data charts and other information and is a good read
for any who are interested.
So, even though I cannot claim a 100% "hit" for my prediction as the largest quake in the region within the 5-day time window was a 5.3 (5.4 on
USGS) and not a 6 or greater, I feel that it was well worth posting the prediction anyway. It was the first time I've posted a prediction for this
region, and there is no question that the seismic events that occurred there within the following days were significant and well beyond what would be
expected by pure chance.
I'd also hazard a guess that if the energy released in the four larger quakes in that region were added together they would approach that of a
magnitude 6. I'm not saying that as some kind of "out" (as I've already said that I "missed" on the magnitude anyway), but rather as an
observation in respect of attempting to estimate energy release (magnitude) when making predictions. It is very helpful if we can make such estimates
where possible, but even so, we need to perhaps re-assess the conventions we use in assessing the results.
Way back in the thread I made a comment along the lines that I see seismic activity as something like the weather: we know certain things will happen
in a general sense. For example, there is a mag 7 quake somewhere in the world about once a month on average, we know that California gets a load of
little quakes every day -- as does Greece -- and so on. It's like knowing that certain places get an average of so many mm/inches of rain every year,
or so many storms. The problem for meteorologists is trying to work out where the next hurricane will hit, or to put it another way, where the next
big bundle of destructive energy will unleash itself. Because it's the big energy releases that destroy property and can take the most lives.
We have the same problem. Fundamentally, this is all about energy and how it is stored and released, and trying to predict where and when those
releases will occur.
I'll put it like this: a magnitude 8 quake releases 100,000 times more energy than a magnitude 3 quake. (Yes, that's not a typo: one hundred
times more energy.) It's like comparing a massive, killer hurricane like Katrina with a local storm that'll get you good and soaked
if you're caught in it but which will blow over in a short while with no real harm done. I don't need to give you details about Katrina. You know.
And that's what I mean. That's the differences in energy release we're looking at. The mag 3's simply are not a major worry most of the time, but
anything above a mid-5 can be dangerous and even deadly.
And those are the ones we really need to try and predict.
So, if we can reasonably predict a major energy release in a specific area and in a specific time frame, we are then approaching what weather
forecasters try to do. They don't always get it right, because the system is subject to the "butterfly in Beijing" factor. This is why when we look
at predicted tracks for hurricanes there are always degrees of variations between what the different agencies say is likely, depending on the data and
calculations they use for their track modelling. And they recognize that even a small deviation can lead to much larger ones and the hurricane may go
off on an entirely different track.
I think that to some degree, seismic movement is subject to the same factors. It may be that a large movement in one place can trigger a significant
quake somewhere else -- and "seismic triggering" is now recognized and documented by science -- but it may also be possible that even a minor,
seemingly insignificant seismic (or volcanic) event can do the same.
That's worth looking into further, I think. If others disagree, that's fine. It's just an idea.
But to bring this long post back to the central theme, I take the EMSC's assessment of the recent Greek quakes as an encouraging sign that there was
some basis to what I predicted.
I can tell you all now honestly that I didn't sleep very well in the days after I posted that prediction. This was not because I was worried about
being wrong, but about what it could mean for people in that region if I was right. All the same, I hope that other members will continue post their
predictions. New contributors are especially welcome! It doesn't matter if we get it wrong, because even when we do, it's often useful data for
Simply put, the more data we can accumulate, the better.
[edit on 1/2/10 by JustMike]