 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Obake Yeti Joined: 07 Jul 2009 Total posts: 63 Gender: Unknown |
 Posted: 25-03-2011 16:24 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| rynner2 wrote: | This is an interesting, two-page article on the current state of earthquake prediction science:
Earthquake Prediction: Mission Impossible
http://geology.about.com/od/eq_prediction/a/aa_EQprediction.htm
In short, earthquakes are random and chaotic events, and we will need much more geological science before EQ prediction can be on a par with weather prediction.
(There are plenty of links to related material.) |
I so often find myself without a dog, so to speak, in these kinds of arguments. I mean, I agree with what all the Smart People in the article and links seem to be saying: earthquake prediction (as in, 'there will be a 6.3 tremor on X fault next week) is something respectable scientists, as opposed to charlatans, think is not only impossible now, but for the foreseeable future.
But (and you knew one was coming) I hope not parsing things too closely, but what the article first says is "After a century of close study, earthquakes look just like random events." [emphasis added] which is far different than earthquakes actually being random occurrences.
The trouble is, I think the author came closer to getting it right at the top of the article, but seems to spend most of it arguing the 'completely random' position.
It would have felt more even-handed if it had mentioned that there have been a few (peer-reviewed) papers suggesting there is a connection between tides and earthquakes
See, for instance:
Cochran, E.S., J.E. Vidale, and S. Tanaka 2004, Earth tides can trigger shallow thrust fault earthquakes, Science, 306, p. 1164-6. link to pdf of article
or
Crockett, R. G. M., G. K. Gillmore, P. S. Phillips, and D. D. Gilbertson ( 2006 ), Tidal synchronicity of the 26 December 2004 Sumatran earthquake and its aftershocks , Geophys. Res. Lett. , 33 LINK to abstract
(Though to be fair, the latter has come under some criticism for its methodology.)
Or take the fact that there have been 16 earthquakes since 1900 to achieve a magnitude of 8.5+ USGS list (by contrast, there have been 71 classified as 8.0-8.4 over the same period).
Of those sixteen, two happened within a three month span in the 20s, seven between 1950-65, and five since Boxing Day 2004. That certainly seems suggestive of a non-randomness operating for the very largest earthquakes. Though I acknowledge the geological record is obviously long enough to account for seeming significance (without actually being so) in a (relatively) small data sample.
But (and this is where I get rubbed the wrong way by that kind of article) there's an odd arrogance some science writing has, where it's not enough to merely say, 'it's been studied it a lot and all we know is how little we know'. There has to be broad, sweeping pronouncements that 'there's definitely no influence by X and anyone who says X is involved is full of shit' .
I know there's great comfort to be had in certitude, but to admit in one breath 'this is a confusing, complicated, chaotic topic we only dimly understand' should really give one pause before speaking with the Voice of Authority with the next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21369 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-03-2011 17:32 Post subject: |
|
|
|
'Random' and 'Chaotic' are not the same thing. Chaos Theory is a relatively recent branch of applied mathematics which deals with physical systems, where although the forces acting are known and understood, the calculation of outcomes produce apparently random results. As Wiki says:
| Quote: | Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory |
(We also have an old thread on the subject:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1745 )
Sometimes chaotic systems have a number of parameters which determine the outcome, and it can be that chaotic behaviour only occurs when one or more of the parameters have values within certain limits. Values outside those limits lead to predictable outcomes.
Maybe, when we understand better all the factors involved in EQs, we will be able to better understand whether all EQs are fundamentally chaotic, or whether some will actually become predictable if we can measure all the relevent parameters correctly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obake Yeti Joined: 07 Jul 2009 Total posts: 63 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 25-03-2011 19:42 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Rynner, I don't disagree with anything you said, but I'm not sure where one can take from what i wrote that I believe chaos and random are the same thing, I'm well aware they are not. (I'm really not trying to be snarky, but it was you who implied they were the same thing: "in short, earthquakes are random and chaotic events").
In any case, that was an interesting overview, thanks for providing the link. I just wish it had been a bit more of a nuanced, less of a cut-n-dried look at the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2734 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-03-2011 20:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Obake wrote: |
Or take the fact that there have been 16 earthquakes since 1900 to achieve a magnitude of 8.5+ USGS list (by contrast, there have been 71 classified as 8.0-8.4 over the same period).
Of those sixteen, two happened within a three month span in the 20s, seven between 1950-65, and five since Boxing Day 2004. That certainly seems suggestive of a non-randomness operating for the very largest earthquakes. Though I acknowledge the geological record is obviously long enough to account for seeming significance (without actually being so) in a (relatively) small data sample.
|
I've done a little digging around those 16 greatest hits and here's the moon phase data.
-1. Chile 1960 May 22 - 9.5
New moon - May 25
*** 2. Prince William Sound, Alaska 1964 Mar 28 - 9.2
Full moon - Mar 28
***3. Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004 Dec 26 - 9.1
Full moon - 2004 Dec 26
4. Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan 2011 Mar 11 - 9.0
New moon - March 04
**5. Kamchatka 1952 Nov 4 - 9.0
Full moon - Nov 1
**6. Offshore Maule, Chile 2010 Feb 27 - 8.8
Full moon Feb 28
7. Off the Coast of Ecuador 1906 Jan 31 - 8.8
New moon Jan 24
**8. Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 Feb 04 - 8.7
New moon - Feb 1
**9. Northern Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 Mar 28 - 8.6
Full moon - Mar 25
**10. Assam - Tibet 1950 Aug 15 - 8.6
New moon - Aug 13
-11. Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1957 Mar 09 - 8.6
New moon - Mar 1
**12. Southern Sumatra, Indonesia 2007 Oct 12 - 8.5
New moon - Oct 11
**13. Banda Sea, Indonesia 1938 Feb 01 - 8.5
New moon - Jan 31
**14. Kamchatka 1923 Feb 03 - 8
Full moon - Feb 1
15. Chile-Argentina Border 1922 Nov 11 - 8.5
Full moon - Nov 4
16. Kuril Islands 1963 Oct 13 - 8.5
New moon - Oct 17 12:43
I've put asterisks in to denote proximity to new and full moons and as you can see, 2 (Prince William Sound) and 3 (Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004) were on the very day of a full moon.
** denotes a quake to within 3 days. The next day in the case of 12 and 13.
This leaves the unstarred but you'll notice that 4, 7 and 15 are 7 days after a new or full moon. Remember that 'respected' geologist Berkland specified a 7 day window for a quake event to take place.
Those marked - are outside this window. By one day in the case of 11.
Of course my stats are amateurish and I didn't know what I'd come up with when I started but now it's difficult for me to look at these major events with a view that they're as completely chaotic or random as they're supposed to be. In fact, if we stretch and lean generously to including those that happened the next day, that's a quarter of the 16 biggest quakes on the planet in a century occurring on a New or Full moon.
phases here...
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phases1901.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21369 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-03-2011 21:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
From that link:
| Quote: | | The following table gives the date and time (Universal Time) of all phases of the Moon for a period of one century. |
Since the EQs mentioned were spread around the globe, the local time and date may well have been further away from New or Full Moon than you estimate, but I don't have the time right now to double check each one for its UT during the EQ.
But we're still left with the elephant in the room:
| Quote: | | Remember that 'respected' geologist Berkland specified a 7 day window for a quake event to take place. |
It still hasn't been explained why. Why exactly should the moon cause EQs halfway between Full and new Moons, when the tidal influence is least?
Specifically, this forecast of his hasn't come to pass:
| Quote: | | Former USGS Geologist Jim Berkland states that this month there is a greater risk of a major quake in North America because 'On the 19th of this month, we're having not only the Full Moon but within an hour, the closest approach of the moon till the year 2016'....you're bringing together the three of the maximum tide raising forces'. |
If he misses the mark when all the forces are at a maximum, why should we think just one of them might be so important?
(The third tide-raising effect he refers to is maybe the Spring Equinox, around March 20/21, although strictly speaking it is not: the third effect is the distance of the Sun from the earth. This was a minimum this year on January 3rd.)
His 7 day window is nearly closed - but if the 'Big One' hits California in the next few hours, I may have to eat humble pie! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2734 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-03-2011 22:25 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rynner2 wrote: |
Since the EQs mentioned were spread around the globe, the local time and date may well have been further away from New or Full Moon than you estimate, but I don't have the time right now to double check each one for its UT during the EQ.
|
It's not estimation. Those are the phases of the moon from a NASA site with exact timings on them.
But since you haven't checked, they may also be closer.
According to the data, you'd have to get very bloody local to discount that the majority of the 16 biggest earthquakes occured within a week of a new and full moon.
And don't forget we are talking geological scale here so this is pretty much instant coffee.
And while we're on, I'd thought you would have acknowledged my previous post on a large hit on Burma on thursday.
| Quote: | Burma earthquake: At least 75 people killed
The town of Tachileik and surrounding villages in Shan state appear to have borne the brunt of the quake Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
China-Burma border hit by quake
Country profile: Burma
US and Suu Kyi in Burma aid talks
At least 75 people are reported to have been killed and many more injured when a powerful earthquake struck north-eastern Burma on Thursday.
The magnitude-6.8 quake struck near the Lao and Thai borders, and was felt as far away as the Thai capital Bangkok, and in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi.
The town of Tachileik and surrounding villages in Shan state appear to have borne the brunt of the earthquake.
There are fears the casualties could be much higher.
Burma is ill prepared to deal with natural disasters, says the BBC's Rachel Harvey in Bangkok.
Communication systems and infrastructure are poor and the military government, still in charge until the handover to a new civilian-led administration, tends to limit the flow of information.
It is likely to take some time before a clear picture of the disaster emerges, our correspondent says.
Several hundred buildings collapsed north of the town of Tachileik, in mountains near the border with Thailand.
Local people told the BBC that in the villages of Tarlay and Mong Lin alone more than 60 people had been killed. Roads and bridges have been damaged making affected areas hard to reach.
"We are trying to reach the remote areas," one official told AFP news agency. "The military, police and local authorities are trying to find some people injured in those affected areas but the roads are still closed."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12852237
Not totally catastrophic as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but that was due to it occurring in a more isolated area.
If I was to theorise further on the theory, I'd say that it's on time, DESPITE the earlier massive explosive release of stress and energy off Japan recently.
Nitpick as much as you want. I'm still interested in the theory as a casual observer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2734 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-03-2011 22:34 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rynner2 wrote: | But we're still left with the elephant in the room:
| Quote: | | Remember that 'respected' geologist Berkland specified a 7 day window for a quake event to take place. |
It still hasn't been explained why. Why exactly should the moon cause EQs halfway between Full and new Moons, when the tidal influence is least?
|
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Maybe you should stop thinking of the Earth in terms of water and more in terms of molten rock, moving crusts and electromagnetic forces.
I noticed in one of your contributions you 'ironically' pointed out that the Earth causes quakes on the Moon. So can you explain why it would be impossible for it to happen the other way around to some degree?
And from the 16 greatest hits, it's not halfway. It's more or less bang-on the new or full moon to 3 days after in a large number of cases and 8 days at the outside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21369 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-03-2011 22:46 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jimv1 wrote: | And while we're on, I'd thought you would have acknowledged my previous post on a large hit on Burma on thursday.
| Quote: | Burma earthquake: At least 75 people killed
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12852237
Not totally catastrophic as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but that was due to it occurring in a more isolated area.
If I was to theorise further on the theory, I'd say that it's on time, DESPITE the earlier massive explosive release of stress and energy off Japan recently. |
I myself posted about the Burma quake on the main Earthquakes thread, since I didn't see its relevence to this one.
As for
| Quote: | | If I was to theorise further on the theory, I'd say that it's on time... |
Well, this is what bothers me - what is the theory? A statement that EQs are more probable during certain periods is not a theory unless backed up by good statistics or good physical theory, neither of which seem to apply to Berkland's ideas. (Otherwise, why do mainstream geologists still reject his ideas?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2734 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-03-2011 22:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rynner2 wrote: | I myself posted about the Burma quake on the main Earthquakes thread, since I didn't see its relevence to this one.
|
Yeah. Right. Yeah.
You mean I've been going on about this thing about major earthquakes happening around 6 days after a full moon and you didn't post the Burma quake on this thread?
I see.
Hmmmm. 'Earthquakes' thread - I should have a look at that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21369 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-03-2011 23:03 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jimv1 wrote: | | I noticed in one of your contributions you 'ironically' pointed out that the Earth causes quakes on the Moon. So can you explain why it would be impossible for it to happen the other way around to some degree? |
It's a question of scale - the Moon's mass is only 0.0123 times that of the Earth.
This is why the Earth has locked the Moon's rotation to its period around the Earth, while the Moon has only slightly slowed the rotation of Earth.
(Otherwise our days might be a month long! And when the Moon and Earth do become tidally locked, the month(=day) will be far longer than it is now.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2734 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 26-03-2011 23:19 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I was more interested in the second question to be honest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2734 Gender: Male |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21369 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 09-04-2011 06:37 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jimv1 wrote: | | ..I've been going on about this thing about major earthquakes happening around 6 days after a full moon... |
And now you're switching to a New Moon:
| Quote: | | 7th April - Japan hit by a 7.1m - 4 days after the New Moon of the 3rd. |
Would you care to restate your theory clearly, saying when you expect earthquakes and why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21369 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 11-05-2011 07:58 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Rome braces for 'prophet-predicted quake'
Thousands of people are reported to be staying out of Rome for the next few days, over fears the city will be hit by a huge earthquake.
The panic was sparked by rumours that seismologist Raffaele Bendandi, who died in 1979, predicted the city would be devastated by a quake on 11 May.
Officials have insisted quakes cannot be predicted and special programmes have run on state TV calling for calm.
But many people said they were leaving the city to be on the safe side.
There are reports of an 18% increase in the number of city employees planning to stay away from work.
"I'm going to tell the boss I've got a medical appointment and take the day off," barman Fabio Mengarelli told Reuters.
"If I have to die, I want to die with my wife and kids, and masses of people will do the same as me."
Another Roman, Tania Cotorobai, told Reuters she planned to spend Wednesday in the countryside.
"I don't know if I really believe it but if you look at the internet you see everything and the opposite of everything, and it ends up making you nervous."
Other people were more sceptical, or said they would make the most of the capital being slightly quieter.
"It's all just stupid - but anyway if it does happen it would be a good thing, tidy things up a bit," said Augusto Costa. 
While Franceso Verselli said that Rome would be spared because it was home to the Pope: "Wherever the Pope is, nothing will happen."
The rumours have been circulating on the streets and online for months that the Eternal City is facing imminent destruction.
They were based on work by Bendandi, who was knighted by Mussolini in 1927 for his prophetic meteorological skill.
He was said to have used his theory that the movement of the planets caused seismic activity to accurately predict a 1923 quake that killed 1,000 people.
Before he died, he pinpointed 11 May 2011 as the day Rome would be totally destroyed - to be followed by two more catastrophic events in May 2012.
Italian concerns have been heightened after the deadly quake in L'Aquila in 2009, and reports that scientists Giampaolo Giuliani had been trying to warn officials in the days before.
But the president of the Osservatorio Geofisico Comunale, the foundation that honours Bendandi, said they had no record of the much-discussed prediction and have dismissed it as an urban myth.
"I can say with absolute certainty that in the papers of Raffaele Bendandi there is no provision for an earthquake in Rome on the 11 May 2011," Paola Lagorio told Abruzzo in March.
"The date is not there, nor is the place."
Tommaso Profeta, head of Rome's civil protection services, told La Repubblica he had received a lot of calls from concerned Rome residents but that there was no danger.
"That said, our plan is to be prepared for natural disaster."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13354988 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ginoide Great Old One Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Total posts: 999 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 11-05-2011 08:05 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Tommaso Profeta, head of Rome's civil protection services, told La Repubblica he had received a lot of calls from concerned Rome residents but that there was no danger.
"That said, our plan is to be prepared for natural disaster." |
...and they should listen to him, given his surname means prophet.
anyway a friend of mine who lives in rome decided to come to milan for a week or so, just in case. she says she doesn't want to wake up while her house collapses on her and think "what would have cost me me to take a fucking train?".  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
