Successful Earthquake Prediction 22
An anonymous reader writes "Although a touch late, it appears that today's earthquake was successfully predicted by the Keilis-Borok team. (The prediction was covered previously on Slashdot.) Purists might argue that the gap between both distance and magnitude is too large to count in favor of the prediction, but this non-geologist is certainly impressed. Here's hoping they continue to receive funding."
Let me be the first to (Score:4, Funny)
And, sometime in the future, another hurrican will hit Florida.
Re:Let me be the first to (Score:1, Offtopic)
Say what? (Score:2)
These guys are amazing. (Score:2, Informative)
Last time I checked, this was called an educated guess.
One quake too north, too late? (Score:3, Informative)
It is true that seismologist Vladimir Keilis-Borok predicted a quake around this magnitude for this year. This quake missed his six-month timeframe by just over three weeks. And it is notably further south.
That would still be a little too close for coincedence for me, except the day before the deadline for the earthquake to occur Dr. Keilis-Borok announced the prediction was based on false data.
So was he covering his tail and reputation back then at the expense of being a little too north and a little too early?
We'll have to wait to see what he says, I guess.
justen
Re: One quake too north, too late? (Score:2)
Re:One quake too north, too late? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One quake too north, too late? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, with such little time between warning and the real event we'd likely have as many (or more) injuries and deaths as a result of the rush out the Oakland bridge or the panic that would ensue.
Having lived in an Earthquake prone state (Alaska) and somewhere near Tornado Alley (Kansas) I have been through both events many times and I would gladly take
Re:One quake too north, too late? (Score:3, Insightful)
From a purist.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't a success. The earthquake today was on a completely different segment of the fault, and was significantly weaker than the prediction, not to mention over three weeks after the generous nine month time period.
Don't get me wrong, I like the research, they've had some surprising success in the past, and I hope they continue. But even by the generous error margins allowed for primitive earthquake predictions, they're wrong this time...and if you asked them I'm sure they'd say the same thing.
And yes, I am a geologist.
Re:From a purist.... (Score:4, Informative)
Ummmmm...no.
This isn't a success. The earthquake today was on a completely different segment of the fault, and was significantly weaker than the prediction, not to mention over three weeks after the generous nine month time period.
Don't get me wrong, I like the research, they've had some surprising success in the past, and I hope they continue. But even by the generous error margins allowed for primitive earthquake predictions, they're wrong this time...and if you asked them I'm sure they'd say the same thing.
And yes, I am a geologist.
As another geologist, I agree.
Not sure where the submitter got his information, but this earthquake isn't even related to KB's prediction *at all*. This quake occured 250 miles northwest of KB's proposed area. In fact, it fell within the range of the area for the quake he predicted last year (the San Simeon earthquake).
However, I would be willing to wager that this earthquake *is* the one that the researchers involved in the Parkfield Experiment [usgs.gov] have been waiting for, only 11 years overdue. Especially since that segment of the S.A.F. through Parkfield has consistantly produced M6.0's or greater roughly every 22 years from 1857 to 1966.
I can only add (Score:2)
Re:I can only add (Score:1)
Re:From a purist.... (Score:2)
I like this list: http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/ca/archives.html
Gives a good sense of earthquake activity.
Re:From a purist.... (Score:1)
I'd like to add that KB is not a seismologist, but rather a mathmatician. A seismologist, should he or she be so bold, would 'predict' earthquakes based on the physical processes that generate earthquakes. KB's prediction is based on pattern recognition in the distribution of microseismicity. Sure, there is merit in short-cutting the physical processes and looking at emergent patterns, but if so, then the tests of these 'predictions' should
Prediction NOT correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) They predicted the earthquake would be in the 9 months between Jan 5 and Sept. 5. Despite the giant "margin of error," they were off by almost a month. A prediction should not span nine months and still be wrong.
2)They predicted a magnitude of 6.4 or greater: the earthquake was 6.0. Again, they were wrong.
3)They predicted it would be within a 12,440 sq. miles area of southern California that includes portions of the eastern Mojave Desert, Coachella Valley, Imperial Valley (San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial Counties) and eastern San Diego County. It seems to me that the epicenter of today's quake was located north of the vast area in which they predicted the earthquake.
To me, this is nothing more than a coincidence. They were off on all three and the mere fact that it took place in the state should not be inferred that it was a valid prediction.
Regardless, methods get better all the time. I am not opposed to this particular prediction method, just a bit annoyed that the slashdot submitter believes it proves the model to be true.
Re:Prediction NOT correct... (Score:1)