- March 16, 2003 -
|
After the 5.4 Big Bear, California earthquake at 34.32N and116.85W on February 22, 2003, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) proclaims, "Earthquakes pose a significant risk to 75 million Americans in 39 states", shows a tendency to monitor earthquakes [1], and gets "a net increase of 28.2 million over the FY 2003 [2]. On earthquake prediction, it has worked since1966, and made four short-term predictions. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find those messages. To help scholars and people to study earthquake prediction in USA, I would like to offer some interesting materials. To help both people in earthquake danger and governments, I will give the USGS a suggestion. |
| The Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment (The 1st, & the 2nd Predictions) |
|
The Parkfield [3] earthquake prediction experiment is famous because the USGS proposed an odd view that large earthquakes would repeat there every 22 years. "After the 1966 Parkfield earthquake, research increased significantly on crustal deformation and small earthquakes activity for this segment of the San Andreas fault, and analysis of the resulting data has clarified the relation between fault slip and minor seismicity both at the time of the 1966 shock and subsequently" [4]. The USGS used 60 geodetic survey lines measured by precise laser ranging, analyzed historic data [5], and obtained a conclusion: "At Parkfield, the duration of the seismic cycle is 22 years, the length of the Parkfield fault section is 25-35 kilometers, and the 'large' earthquake is a magnitude 6 shock" [4]. In April 1985, the USGS issued a long-term prediction, "an earthquake with a magnitude of about 6 would occur near Parkfield before 1993" [6]. In September 1985 the USGS and the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) began joint development of the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment. As a result, Parkfield became "The most densely and comprehensively instrumented earthquake-source zone in the world" [6] On October 20, 1992, at 5:46 UTC the USGS issued its first A-level alert, "There is a 37 percent probability that the characteristic Parkfield earthquake (M=6) will occur within 72 hrs" after a magnitude 4.7 shock there at 5:28 UTC [6]. The prediction relied on not only the long-term prediction, but also the data, "in both 1934 and 1966 a magnitude 5.0 foreshock preceded the magnitude 6 mainshocks by about 17 min" [6]. Unfortunately, there was neither an earthquake of magnitude >= 5.5 in the Northwest Hemisphere (0~90N, 0~180W) within 72 days from September 16 to November 26, nor >= 4.0 in 34~38N and 118.5~122.5W within 81 days from October 20, 1992 to January 10, 1993. After a M4.8 Parkfield earthquake on November 14, the USGS issued its second A-level alert on November 15, 1993 to all media in USA. Many scientists went to there to capture data, but nothing happened. There was neither a quake of magnitude >= 5.5 in the area of 15~50N, 0~180W within 50 days from November 14, 1993 to January 2, 1994, nor >= 4.0 in 34~38N and 118.5~122.5W within 63 days from November 15 to January 16. A puzzle for this experiment is Why the USGS refused the 4.2 Parkfield shock on April 4, 1993 as a foreshock to make a prediction. |
| Date | Time | Latitude (N) | Longitude(W) | Magnitude(ML) | Prediction |
| 19921020 | 5:28 | 35.92 | 120.48 | 4.4 | The 1st |
| 19930404 | 5:21 | 35.93 | 120.51 | 4.2 | No |
| 19931114 | 12:25 | 35.97 | 120.51 | 4.6 | The 2nd |
|
|
| Seismic Hazards Investigation in Puget Sound (The 3rd Prediction) |
|
In March, 1998, the both American and Canadian scientists began working together on collecting seismic data in Puget Sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and the Straits of Georgia by two ships. Then, they released , a warning of an earthquake of magnitude >= 9 there . Many people wrote me in May 1999 that the prediction was long overdue. However, I still do not know its exact time and a reference for quote. If you know, please tell me. In fact, neither an earthquake of magnitude 9 has been in the world since January 1, 1990 at least, nor >=6 was in the area of 46~56N, 110~140W within 305 days from August 31, 1998 to July 1, 1999. However, a M6.8 earthquake hit Olympia (47.15N, 122.72W) near Seattle on February 28, 2001 [7] when the USGS gave up the prediction.
|
| L.A.'s Big Squeeze likely Site of Next Major Quake (The 4th Prediction) |
|
Geologists of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) worked on the area of about 33.9~34.7 N 118.1~119.6 W. It contained Downtown Los Angles, Pasadena, Hollywood, Northridge, San Fernando, and so on. The 6.6 San Fernando earthquake killed 62 people in 1971, and the 6.7 Northridge 61 in 1994 [8]. Starting research in 1996, they were able to use 60 GPS (the Global Positioning System) receivers that satellites closely tracked to note their yearly movement, one-fifth of an inch a year as a result. Currently, 140 receivers were in place around L. A. Within 18 months, the network would reach its full strength of 250 measuring points [8]. On August 3, 1999, they proclaimed, "L.A.'s Big Squeeze likely site of next major quake" and predicted, "Heart of the city will be struck" [8]. However, the 7.0 Hector Mine earthquake at 34.60N, 116.27W on October16, 1999 [9] occupies the next major quake and disproves the prediction. If we extend one degree to all directions of the predicted area, there was no earthquake of magnitude >=4 within 202 days from August 3, 1999 (The birthday of the L. A. prediction) to February 20, 2000.
|
| Opposite Responses |
|
Together, the USGS made four short-term predictions with the most modern technology. Unfortunately, all of them were far away to their targets. Opposite those predictions, I made some responses to them. First, I replied many California residents that the Parkfield prediction on November 15, 1993 would fail with a possibility of 95% relying on my observation and analysis correctly. Second, I predicted the 6.8 Seattle earthquake by a geoeruption in our homepage at 9:14 p.m. on February 27, 2001 successfully [10],[11],[12]. Third, I predicted the next major quake not in Los Angles, but in either the black triangle, containing Palm Springs, Landers, and so on, or the border between California and Nevada successfully [13][14][15]. All responses are right in spire of using simple tools or even just eyes. |
| A Comparison between three American Predictions and Mine |
|
Except the Puget Sound prediction due to no time, let's compare other three predictions with my 6.3 Mexico prediction by eye on March 5, 1999. Deal with them all in the same area of 14~42N, and 85~130W (much bigger than my prediction), the same magnitude of 5.5~6.8, and the same span 26 days as mine. The results in the following table show my prediction by eye even better than those by the most modern instrument. |
| Prediction | A 26 day span | Magnitude >=5.5 | |
| The 1st | 19921020~1114 | No | |
| The 2nd | 19931115~1210 | 5.6* | |
| The 4th | 19990803~0828 | No | |
| My No. 2 | 19990305~0330 | 6.3 |
|
*19931119 2:25 14.8N 93.9W 5.6 |
| Five Recent Predictions in USA & Mexico to the Public |
|
American scientists and people may ask me if I predicted the recent M7.9 Alaska, M7.8 Mexico and M5.4 Big Bear earthquakes. My response is yes. I predicted them and some others in USA to the Public. Colume 2 "Prediction Time" are according to the Internet Recorder.
|
| Image Time | Prediction Time | Earthquake | Location | Magnitude | Result* |
| 8/16/200218:30 | 9/8/2002 12:00 a.m. | 10/23/2002 | Alaska | 6.7 | close |
| 9/25/200215:30 | 10/5/2002 4:01 p.m. | 11/3/2002 | Alaska | 7.9 | close |
| 12/2/2002 6:00 | 12/21/2002 7:02 p.m. | 1/22/2003 | Mexico | 7.8 | very close |
| 12/28/2002 21:30 | 1/12/2003 1:23 a.m. | 2/2/2003 | San Francisco | 4.2, 4.0, 4.5 | exactly |
| 1/28/2003 6:30 | 2/9/2003 2:18 a.m. | 2/22/2003 | Big Bear | 5.4 | very close |
|
Note: Mark * in the images of Column 6: epicenter. Although the five predictions only rely on unfrequent meteorological data from the Internet, they are much better than the four American official predictions. |
| My Latest Prediction Is Successful |
|
My latest earthquake prediction is successful. The following is a comparison. |
| Time | Location | Magnitude | Probability( %) | |
| The Coarse Prediction | 2/24~5/7 | Mexico <125W | >=6.3 | 21.8 |
| The Fine Prediction | 2/28~4/18 | Mexico >=95W | >=6.3 | 12.4 |
| The Earthquake | 3/12 23:41 | 26.33N 110.64W | 6.4 | All right |
| My Suggestion |
|
In summary, the USGS has worked on earthquake prediction with the most modern technology since 1966. It made four short-term predictions, but no one was close to its target. On the other hand, I disproved its two predictions correctly. The comparison between three predictions of the USGS and my eye-observing prediction, my five recent predictions in USA & Mexico to the Public, and the success of my latest prediction further demonstrate how important a correct theory is. In short, the USGS owns the most modern technology, but lacks a correct method; while I have a correct method, but lack basic technology for good data[32][33] Therefore, I suggest the USGS trying something new. I think that using 0.05% of its budget to try my method will not affect its great plan, but find a new way, by which its most modern technology will combine my method. As a result, people will be able to survive from fatal earthquakes, governments will save billion and billion taxes, and the USGS will earn the top honor.
|
| References |
|
|