EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION
How To Judge Earthquake Predictions & Their Precursors
-Zhonghao Shou 5/8~14/2000 -
|
I have received many e-mail messages about how to judge earthquake predictions and their precursors, for example, a Greek newsman asked me my opinion about the method of VAN (Varotsos, Alexopoulos and Nomicos); some Turkish people asked me if Radon, announced to predict two successful earthquakes by Russian EMERCOM, worked; a Turkish friend told me that Chinese scientists predicted a M5 earthquake and were recommended as the top in the world, and asked me if it was possible; another Turkish friend told me that there have been many homepages in Turkey for earthquake predictions since the 7.8 Turkey earthquake, and asked me my opinion about those sites; some scientists and people asked me for cooperation; many Turkey people told me that there was a serious debate about a large earthquake in or near Istanbul between two group of scientists, and asked me which group was right; an American man requested me to judge his device, and so on. Therefore, I would like to write an essay to discuss my crude opinion with everybody. First of all, I would like to state that the aim of our work is to figure out a key to make earthquake evacuation be possible or to let people not worry about a big earthquake anymore, so there is no conflict between other predictors and us, which is why I declined to give the Greek newsman my opinion. However, I may comment on their method in the future, but that is only for science. I would also like to mention that I will defend in case that someone wants to put our work down, for instance, last year, Mr. Kilic wrote us an unreasonable comment, and I had to give him a response. Later, he wrote me to explain that comment was not his opinion, but the request of the leaders of ______, who wanted to be the top, so I understood him and deleted the essay. Now, let me talk about how to judge earthquake predictions and their precursors: First, I would like to suggest you to check if a past prediction has a reliable date proof (News paper, post stamp, and witness signature are reliable). Otherwise, myths may trick you. Second, to check the probability of a prediction, and the accuracy of a group of predictions. For example, a man told me that his predictions were 100% correct, but did not show their probabilities, so I have no idea to recommend his success. For another example, a Turkish homepage showed that many earthquakes of magnitude equal or more than 3.5 fell into its predictions as its success. However, no earthquake of magnitude equal or more than 5.5 fell into its unsuccessful predictions. The both facts imply that its success does not rely on science, but on a random guess. Therefore, when you hear a successful prediction, it is better to check if its probability follows. Third to check the model or the mechanism of a precursor, connecting to those predictions, to see if there is a possible relationship between the model and the Third Nature Law (Any event is from a gradual, small, quantitative change to a sudden, great, qualitative change). Many precursors, such as foreshock, radon, geodetic method, and so on lack a clear qualitative change, so they are unsuccessful on short term prediction for a centenary and more. By contrast, earthquake clouds theory has a "Dehydration" phase to depict the sudden, great, qualitative change [1], so it is reliable. Although sometimes it seems to make a mistake, in fact, the cause of the mistake is not form the precursor itself, but from the predictor who lacks both necessary data and abounding experience. Finally, to check the cost of a prediction. Cost is an important sign not only for an economic reason, but also for a potential possibility to overcome the problems that affect the quality of predictions. For example, Japanese set up a net of seismic instruments, about 4,400 million Yen, into the seabed near Tokyo for earthquake prediction, so the potential possibility of this method is gone. However, they have not predicted an earthquake yet, so this method is not hopeful. In contrast, relying on earthquake clouds, I made many successful predictions only by a compass or a computer. Their cost is much cheaper than any other predictions. Thus, earthquake clouds have a large potential possibility, and a wonderful prospect even though no government respects this precursor now. The above four principles are useful to judge whether or not a prediction is faithful and really successful, and a precursor is reliable and meaningful, but to a researcher or a predictor, besides the four principles, you'd better analyze an earthquake database and read some relative references to make a sure if your precursor works, which will help you to avoid unnecessary fail. For example, I analyzed the Southern California Earthquake Database, and knew that no foreshock for a long time may imply a big earthquake, and a lot of foreshocks in a small area may indicate nothing. Thus, when reading the news about the 4,400 million Yen Japanese program, I commented that Japanese scientists threw money to the Pacific Ocean, and the fact proves that I am correct. Now, Turkish professors hire Japanese experts to do the same job. Its result is predictable. Another example is about the geodetic method, with which American scientists worked on two scientific ships in Puget Sound near Seattle in March 1998, and made an overdue prediction. Moreover, they used the same method and the latest technology to measure a tiny land change (one-fifth of an inch a year) of Los Angeles from a satellite between 1996 and 1999, and made a prediction for the city. However, I denied their prediction immediately [2], and the 7.0 Mine, Southern California Earthquake showed that I was right [3]. In fact, Chinese scientists contributed some excellent papers to this method [4 ~ 7]. Had American scientists referred to those articles, they would have saved much energy and money. Now, they may use helicopter to do the same experiment. Its future may not be wonderful. Finally, I would like to discuss the request of Mr. Havins (See Comment No. 70 ) as both an example of this essay, and a response for his request. In addition, some people read his request and ask me questions about his device, so this reply is also for those questions. One thing I should point out is that my reply relies on a good hypothesis that his purpose to make his device is not for earning money, but for helping people in earthquake danger. Otherwise, I would not like to spend my time. First, I would like to thank him for his inviting me to visit and buy his device. Unfortunately, I have no time (I spend more than eight hours a day without weekend and holiday only for receiving satellite image) to check if his device works in detail. However, I would like to give him and everyone my three comments counting on my four principles: (1) He claimed, "Prediction is no NOOOOOOO problem", but he did not tell if he predicted earthquakes yet. In case he did, it is better to show how low the probabilities and how high the accuracy of his predictions are instead. (2) He explained, "Its motions relate to meteorology, quakes, animal behavior." He might not aware that is a serious problem, called interruption, because while a predictor finds a strong motion from his device, the predictor does not know which one among "meteorology, quakes, animal behavior" should be predicted. Interruption is a common, terrible problem for many other precursors, such as geoelectric, geomagnetic, electromagnetic, animal behavior, and so on. However, earthquake clouds and geoeruption only indicate earthquakes, so they are reliable. (3) He wrote, "It costs less than five dollars to build", but he did not tell what its working radius is. To predict earthquakes in the world, a predictor may need billion dollars to set up his devices to cover the world, and connect them together to a center. By contrast, I can predict earthquakes in any place of the world by searching earthquake clouds and geoeruption from satellite cloud images with only a computer. However, if Mr. Havins thinks that his device can reveal energy distribution exactly, he'd better report it to the USGS because they have a lot of money, and may use his device. if someone is interested in his device, his address is "6671 Bullion Ave. 29 Palms Ca. 92277".
|
| Evidences and References |
|
|
Sign Our Guestbook
View Our Guestbook
Webmaster