Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Why Are We So Bad at Predicting Earthquakes? (telegraph.co.uk) 174

Posted by EditorDavid from the rumbles-in-the-jungles dept.
In the wake of major earthquakes in both Japan and Ecuador, one British newspaper asks: Why are we so bad at predicting earthquakes? In 2015 seismologists told Vice, "The more we study them, the harder they look to predict, and "there's a shortage of instrumenation." But today the Telegraph newspaper concludes that we actually have two problems: first, "science is hopeless at predicting earthquakes and, second, we keep building cities on major fault-lines..." They cite a new book called Earth-Shattering Events which reports that nearly half the world's large cities are in earthquake-prone areas, adding, "we don't just build our cities on fault-lines, we also tend to rebuild them, in the same place, but no more robust, time and time again." In 1976 one quake in China killed more than 750,000 people, while a 2004 quake in Indonesia killed 170,000. "The Earth will move and there's not a thing we can do to stop it," the Telegraph concludes, arguing that we need to learn more from our past.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Are We So Bad at Predicting Earthquakes? More

Why Are We So Bad at Predicting Earthquakes?

Comments Filter:

  • Because (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Because we haven't prosecuted enough scientists for failing to predict earthquakes. Italy is on the ball. Get with it, world!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dave420 ( 699308 )

      The scientists were prosecuted because they predicted there would be no earthquake, not that they didn't predict an earthquake. I hope you can see the difference.

      • The scientists were wrongly prosecuted. They reported their assessment based on a review of the data available to them. They did not state whether or not there would be an earthquake.

        • The scientists were wrongly prosecuted. They reported their assessment based on a review of the data available to them. They did not state whether or not there would be an earthquake.

          Well, I remember a big discussion here on /. a few years ago about the subject where transcripts and such were drug out. I remember them doing a bit more than that. They essentially held a press conference outside of official channels to discredit a kook, and instead of sticking to the "nobody can predict earthquakes" line they started with, but by the end at least one person was telling the public "go home, have a glass of wine, don't worry about it" and then there was another earthquake. Now the guy was a

  • SImple answer... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @02:18PM (#51927507)
    Because we do not have appropriately accurate modeling of the parts of the earth which cause earthquakes occur.

    .
    Why don't we have the appropriate modeling? Because we do not have enough information to create those models.

    Why don't we have the information to create the models? Because we do not explore the earth enough.

    • Re:SImple answer... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @02:36PM (#51927589)

      Simpler answer,
      We don't know very much.

      This applies to most things, not just earthquakes,
      Medicine, (why do we need so much testing? because we are taking a stab in the dark and seeing if it works)
      Weather, how many are forecasts inaccurate.

      In fact any system that is even mildly complex we blunder our way through, even an area like programming, where we know exactly how the system works, and all inputs, we still need to test rigorously in to ensure that we haven't made to may mistakes.

      Also earth quakes are probably a chaotic system so we probably cannot get close to even knowing enough inputs to predict them, no matter how much we explore. (It doesn't mean we shouldn't try)

      • Yep, blundering my way through slashdot's website since 6 digits ago.

    • You forgot one more obvious but important observation

      Predicting the future is hard, and past does not equal future.

    • Re:SImple answer... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @03:51PM (#51927833)

      Because we do not have appropriately accurate modeling of the parts of the earth which cause earthquakes occur.

      Actually, it's because we're bad at predicting, period, end of sentence

      Wonderful things like reinforcement bias and the availability heuristic meddle with our accuracy. There's a reason why earthquake insurance sells the best days after an earthquake, when statistically that's when there's the least risk. When something horrible happens, people suddenly remember, and Do Something, but as the years add up since the last event, we become lax.

      That's the personal level. I recommend reading Risk by Dan Gardner to lean a bunch about this in general. From that book, he moved on with Philip Tetlock and wrote Future Babble and then Superforecasting, which more closely refine the general psychology covered in Risk down to mathematical models and expert opinions. Risk is a fascinating read useful to individuals to understand why grocery stores have sales with "limit 10 per customer", and why more extra Americans died driving the year after September 11th than died in the attacks themselves, and the other two get (much) more into "why are economists wrong so often" (Future Babble), and finally "why are some people so good at analyzing data and predicting things like complex geopolitical events and the like, and how can we learn to be like them" (Superforecasting).

      I leave locating the books to the audience as you know what bookstores you prefer and the author and titles are very clear.

      • Actually the days after a major earthquake is the highest likelihood of another major or minor quake occurring.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by plopez ( 54068 )

      That is only part of the story. More instrumentation may not help if you are measuring the wrong things. Secondly you are dealing with complex systems modeled by non-linear equations with no closed form solutions. Ever. There may be a plethora of potential solutions but they may represent local solutions as opposed to global solutions. Past a certain point Math can't help you and if Math can't help you neither will a computer model.

      Weather models have gotten better at long range global trends and very short

      • The 'instrumentation' idea is right on. Where in the crust do you put them? since the surface of the fault is a 3 dimensional thing, you can't go straight down from the surface. And of course that instrumentation likely gets crushed during any movement :)

        Another factor we don't know anything about is the forces driving the tectonics. Sure we know the concepts but nothing of the details of what I assume to be magma/whatever pushing India north. At what speed? What's the friction against the bottom

        • The 'instrumentation' idea is right on. Where in the crust do you put them? since the surface of the fault is a 3 dimensional thing, you can't go straight down from the surface. And of course that instrumentation likely gets crushed during any movement :)

          One word : Parkfield. Nice idea, not a lot of useful data.

          Another factor we don't know anything about is the forces driving the tectonics. Sure we know the concepts but nothing of the details of what I assume to be magma/whatever pushing India north.

          Fair p

    • Why don't we have the information to create the models? Because we do not explore the earth enough.

      And continue your analysis ...

      Why don't we have enough information? Because rock is opaque, to gamma radiation on thicknesses more than a half-metre or so. It is opaque to X-rays on similar scales. It is opaque to UV on a scale of centimetres, and for most minerals, to visible and IR on even shorter scales. The only tecnhniques which can penetrate more than a few metres into rock are magnetics, gravity and ac

  • What straw will break the camel's back (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @02:24PM (#51927537) Homepage

    We know where earthquakes will be - along fault lines. When will it happen? When the tension gets too high. It's like asking what pebble will start a landslide, what snowflake will start an avalance or what straw will break the camel's back. The problem isn't the lack of an answer, the problem is that we're expecting an exact result to a complex and chaotic process. Would you also like a map of where lighting is going to strike?

    • We can't directly measure those stresses. We probably never will be able to, so we are left with measuring the symptoms. Also, creating an accurate model of subsurface lamination (if that is the correct term) is likely also very hard to do without drilling a huge number of sample holes.

      The fact that we build some cities near fault lines is a completely different topic, however, one could speculate that with more people living and working near fault lines, there is more money being spent on quake research
      • Exactly, it is not possible to measure directly the stress between to sliding plates. So, other methods have to be developed in order to gather information or explore indirect insight of a particular situation. The author of the article is pessimistic and is picking litterally a rabbit from his hat to make a point which isn't one. Who f... care about the Spartan rabbit who made a prediction more than 2000 years ago. Is he talking about modern science or not?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        We can't directly measure those stresses.

        Can we measure them indirectly? - Honest question. I don't know if GP post is correct or not, it could be that when stress reaches a certain level an earthquake will occur. Obviously you'd never know down to the second, but could we ever know down to the day.. month... or year? How chaotic is it?

        Maybe it'd be possible to deliberately set off an imminent quake, doing this could save a lot of lives as you could get everyone to safety 1st. I'd love to hear an experts o

        • I think that only works in the movies. Trying to affect tectonic plates with a nuke is like trying to deflect an oil tanker by chucking tennis balls at it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            Or like throwing that tennis ball at the lever that releases the ship from dry dock - a few megatons might just be enough to start something which is already close to happening.

            Fracking causes earthquakes so you can't say it's not possible.

          • Yeah, but what if Chuck Norris chucks them?

            Wait ... My money is on Samo!

        • Can we measure them indirectly? - Honest question.

          Well, I oversimplified because you not only need to measure the stresses but you need a continuous measurement, or at least a detailed enough sample, over a large volume of earth. I don't see any way we can get the indirect measurements that provide the accuracy needed, and they have not been able to do it yet. Its a monumental thing to pull off, but maybe someday methods will be developed that get us closer to a detailed model.

        • Yes you can measure it, indirectly, using ion analysis from p holes. http://www.seti.org/seti-insti... [seti.org]

          Or you may watch the ionosphere.
          https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]

          I have a high altitude system and a low altitude system (10 ground stations) and both give me the Total Electron Content of the ionosphere to support a patent in the tomography of the ionosphere.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            Some interesting stuff there. But more data is certainly needed, the way people got ill in the lead up to an earthquake is fascinating, but again there could have been a separate cause.

        • It's an interesting question. In theory it's similar to ski resorts that set off man induced avalanches. They fire charges into the upper slopes to bring down build up so it doesn't happen uncontrolled when people are in the area.

          That said, those are pretty remote areas without buildings below :)

          The liability alone would be mind boggling. "Boss, I triggered a 3.5, but a 7.0 happened....".

          What if you could make the San Andreas fault frictionless? Probably good for SoCal, but Seattle might not

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            Yeah, lol, the liability.
            Person1: 'You destroyed my house'
            Person2: 'meh, it was going to get destroyed anyway'

            "What if you could make the San Andreas fault frictionless?"
            Inject some lube? Fracking in reverse!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          I don't know if GP post is correct or not, it could be that when stress reaches a certain level an earthquake will occur. Obviously you'd never know down to the second, but could we ever know down to the day.. month... or year? How chaotic is it?

          Imagine that you decide to build a bedspring out of soda cans. Randomly, a can will collapse, causing the bed to shift. If you want to predict when it will happen, you have to know the thickness of every can, how much stress it can take before collapsing, and how

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            As I understand it, earthquakes are kind of like that. At millions of points along a fault, various rock structures prevent the plates from slipping past one another. Periodically, those break or shift, allowing the plates to continue sliding. An earthquake occurs when the stress becomes sufficient to cause one of those rock structures to break or shift so that the plates can move again. The size of the earthquake is proportional to the amount of pressure that was on that structure prior to when it broke or

    • Likely the only way we will 'predict' earthquakes is when we learn enough to cause them. Why would we do that -- to make several small ones instead of one big one.

      Fracking-related (actually wastewater reinjection) quakes demonstrate it is feasible with current technology.

      • Fracking-related (actually wastewater reinjection) quakes demonstrate it is feasible with current technology.

        No. Fracking earthquakes are shallow, not remotely deep enough to affect tectonic plate activity. And there's not enough data, yet, to say whether small earthquakes due to fracking reduce the likelihood of larger, naturally occurring earthquakes at all.

        We have never drilled down remotely close enough to affect tectonic activities. The expense is fairly astronomical.

    • In response to massive avalanches caused by snowpacks becoming gigantic and eventually collapsing from their own weight, resorts and mountain towns started using explosives to deliberately cause avalanches when the snowpacks were still small. There were more avalanches, but they were smaller - not large enough to be destructive to human infrastructure.

      We accidentally stumbled onto the exact same thing with earthquakes. When the oil companies started fracking, we discovered the extra lubrication could t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        The earthquakes from fracking (at least here) are not along the major fault lines so they aren't going to help and possibly will make it worse by transferring energy towards the major fault lines. Haphazardly and randomly crushing rock and adding lubricant is as stupid as walking through the mountains randomly shooting a shotgun during avalanche season.

      • "Geothermal energy - the only "clean" energy source which could potentially have replaced base load power plants "

        Bunkum.

        Rocks are amazingly poor heat conductors. Geothermal energy plants start out with high production and then taper off to uneconomic with a few tiny exceptions such as Iceland, which has the advantage of being on top of a mantle plume that's constantly bringing new heat near the surface.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      -not always along fault lines
      -interplate faults are still bloody huge.
      -we don't always know where faults are
      -that doesn't allow for internal stresses of non-faultline rock that can still give and cause a quake

      Faults are discontinuities in the rock of a tectonic plate.

      Interplate faults, ie plate boundaries, are obvious once we got the tectonic plates largely mapped. and they are huge, in length and width.

      but that doesn't account for ancient faults or plate borders that we don't know about (such the idea that

  • here it's hard to see all the stored energy. Neither image sufficiently well on the large scale to satisfy the second-guessers, and imaging on the smallest scale is diminishing investment. Granted temp and precip forecasts have a pretty tight 90% confidence interval for 24 hours, and earthquakes aren't predicted like that, but you're chasing something that cannot be "seen" without fairly ornate technology.

    Also, maybe stop poking holes in the ground and greasing the giant moveable rocks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      Also, maybe stop poking holes in the ground and greasing the giant moveable rocks.

      Seems to me that there wouldn't be a lot of oil and natural gas collecting where the rocks are moveable. Movement fractures rock and probably would give that stuff an exit to the surface.

  • That's not really true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @02:25PM (#51927551) Journal

    "we don't just build our cities on fault-lines, we also tend to rebuild them, in the same place, but no more robust, time and time again."

    I can't speak for everywhere, but in California, the construction standards are much higher after the 1989 earthquake.

    Boston, however, [boston.com] is in serious danger because of so many tall buildings built of brick (and other reasons).

  • The National Hurricane Center is reasonably good at projecting the paths of hurricanes but horrible at predicting their intensity and even worse at predicting how busy a season will be. The NWS is a bit better at predicting tornadic events but still lacks basic understanding about why certain mesocyclones produce tornadoes while others don't.

  • Don't want to risk jail for getting it wrong
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dave420 ( 699308 )

      They were charged because they predicted there would be no earthquake, something they had no worldly way of knowing. They got it wrong, and people were placed in danger because of it. Not predicting something and predicting something will not happen are two different things, which you entirely failed to mention.

  • http://www.suspicious0bservers... [suspicious0bservers.org]
    Check 'em out if you're not familiar with their work.

  • We can predict earthquakes ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Sunday April 17, 2016 @02:55PM (#51927653) Homepage

    we know the sort of geology that is found in earthquake areas, so we can predict where they will happen; by measuring strain, etc, we can get an idea of when they will happen and what sort of magnitude. The trouble is that we (== common people, non scientists) expect answers that fit in with my everyday rulers and clocks (ie a few miles and days), but geological events are measured differently: hundreds of miles and decades/centuries; so the margins of error are too great for what we want.

    If I place a vase of roses outside on a summer's day I can expect the flowers to be visited by bees, but I cannot predict which flower will be visited first or the minute when the first bee will come.

  • We "keep doing" this? Are there some newly-built cities we've intentionally located on major faults?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Some fairly recent constructions in Japan have turned out to be on previously unknown fault lines. Some nuclear plants will probably never re-start because since the 2011 disaster they have been re-surveyed with better equipment than was available in the 80s and found to have faults under them.

  • i live in area that was devastated half a decade ago and i can tell you when you're world is torn to shreds, you need hope and you need to tell tragedy where to shove it. This is why we WILL rebuild. [fjcdn.com] When it's all over, you can proudly declare that you cannot be defeated. [youtube.com] #ClickThemLinks

  • Suppose we could... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @03:15PM (#51927737) Journal

    That brings up an interesting question--what do we do about it?

    "We've determined that on May 17, 2015, there will be a 6.0-level earthquake in San Francisco. We believe the accuracy of this prediction to be 90%."

    Great! We've got a month's warning. It's going to be major. We're pretty sure it's going to happen--but there's a possibility that it won't.

    Now what? Evacuate 800,000 people? Start building shelters that can withstand the earthquake? Do you tell people so that they can prepare?

    • Re:Suppose we could... (Score:5, Funny)

      by sysrammer ( 446839 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @04:27PM (#51927949) Homepage
      Forecasting? It doesn't look like you can even get postcasting right.

    • Re:Suppose we could... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @05:10AM (#51930305) Journal

      "We've determined that on May 17, 2015, there will be a 6.0-level earthquake in San Francisco. We believe the accuracy of this prediction to be 90%." [...] Now what? Evacuate 800,000 people?

      Absolutely, the city would be evacuated. That's much higher prediction accuracy than we can get with hurricanes, yet cities are evacuated for those, sometimes even several times per year.

      Of course, the minority, whor are living in structures engineered to withstand very high earthquake loads would remain behind. But at least they'd have plenty of warning to strap down appliances before-hand, and stay away from dangerous spots on that day.

      Not to mention there would be a rush on home-improvement stores and contractors, as everyone rushes to reinforce their shoddy old buildings.

    • That would actually be very useful. If you know of an earthquake a few days out you can:

      1) Have emergency services ready for an influx of casualties.
      2) Have the national guard on standby just in case.
      3) Shutdown all the nuclear reactors.
      4) Make sure any dams are not operating near capacity.
      5) Prevent workers from working on high rise construction projects.
      6) Prevent workers from working with hazards materials for that day.
      7) Shutdown oil refineries and other major fire hazards.
      8) Shutdown any amusement park

  • Structured Criticality (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fragnet ( 4224287 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @04:12PM (#51927895)
    It may not be possible to predict them. There's such a thing as Structured Criticality [wikipedia.org]. That is to say:

    ... a property of complex systems in which small events may trigger larger events due to subtle interdependencies between elements. This often gives rise to a form of stratified chaos where the general behaviour of the system can be modelled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviours remain unpredictable.

  • We keep building cities on major fault-lines BECAUSE faults are good for a lot of human activities - they expose underground water and easy to mine resources. Cities simply tend to grow nearby. The same with volcanoes - their ash makes a very good soil. And we tend to rebuild those cities for one more reason - the surviving infrastructure and businesses.
  • People have been debating about it for decades. It is certain the cat Schrodinger in the box is definitely dead, whether or not the timer mechanism has triggered the poison gas to be released or not. No cat has survived this many decades without food or water. But still people argue about it, claiming non zero probability for the cat to be still alive. When science can't even answer whether or not a cat in the box for the last 80 years has died or not, how can it answer when the earthquake is going to strik

  • C'mon. There is no safe place on Earth. Oooo, don't build in the forest because it might burn. Oooo, don't build near the water because it might flood. Oooo, don't build in middle America because tornadoes.

  • The author seems to be making the assumption that we shouldn't build cities in places where earthquakes can occur. Should we also not build them in places that are at risk for hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, volcanoes, wildfires, or any other sort of natural disaster? If so, we've just ruled out a large fraction of land on earth, including most coastlines and just about the entire Pacific rim.

    There are risks everywhere. They're different in different places, but nowhere is completely safe. You have to

  • Buildings and roads should be designed for the maximum likely accelerations. These accelarations can be deduced from geophysical studies. Laws must enforce building codes. There are many places in the US where high quake accelerations are known, e.g. New York, Boston, D.C., Oklahoma, and building codes are woefully inadequate.
  • This pointing to an inability to change is the important part. The public massively resists change. The public also fails to appreciate that when we change one thing it often involves changing many others things to accommodate that change. For example, we all know that San Francisco needs to be moved quite a distance. San Francisco is a mega disaster in the making. But you can bet that the financial industry that loaned money for homes, buildings, and utilities to be built will not want to share i

  • instrumenation?

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close