Jump to content

Talk:Earthquake prediction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1 contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised 20 June 2012) prior to restructuring.

"Difficulty or impossibility" proposal

[edit]

We have left hanging an issue raised by Elriana (above, 02:44, 15 Feb.) about the "Difficulty or impossibility" section, that "it does not make clear to an uninitiated reader *why* predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible." As I noted then, that section has been seriously hacked. In its current recent form it makes a bald assertion that "Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible", makes reference to two theories without explaining what they mean, and then concludes: "However, these theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible have been disputed." I believe the effect of this on most readers is that their eyes glaze over, and they move one without the slightest understanding. I propose restoration of the "Difficulty or impossibility" section to its previous location (following the notable predictions) and extent, more or less as seen in this verision (Aug. 2014).

In its previous incarnation this section came after the notable quakes section, so that instead of lecturing to the reader that prediction of quakes is impossible, the reader is first shown that the record of earthquake prediction is disappointing. This section then addressed why that is the case, mentioning both that prediction may be impossible, or merely "fiendishly difficult". Although the latter is alluded to in the section title, in the current recent version it is not even mentioned, showing the glaring inadequacy of the present version.

Whether earthquake prediction is even possible is the most significant aspect of this topic. It warrants adequate treatment, and is a fitting conclusion to the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this proposal, and have brought back the section from Aug. 2014 (more or less). JerryRussell (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you, Jerry. I was thinking we should wait a bit in case anyone wanted to object, but there's no harm done, as this in no way impairs any discussion. I'll adjust my comments to match. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also, JJ, for restoring the sources. The article is looking better all the time. JerryRussell (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both! This section makes much more sense now. I could probably still quibble with the grammar and presentation, but would like to see how the current (restored) version is received by others before contemplating any modifications.Elriana (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brain bender

[edit]

WP is not supposed to be repository for graduate students' theses. It would be nice if the average interested person could simply read this and understand the main points. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, as writers, we need to provide clear and coherent text that summarizes appropriate sources. That has been done here. The reader needs to be responsible for being aware of the fundamentals. You wouldn't want to define plate tectonics in every earthquake article, for example. Dawnseeker2000 23:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: Brain bender??? Graduate student theses? Are you saying that "the average interested person" can not "simply read this and understand the main points"? Where the hell are you coming from? Well, perhaps from Talk:Richter_magnitude_scale#Recent_copy-edits, where you said: "Just try to make it simple enough for a layperson to understand ...." That is where you made a number of questionable edits. (Which I explained to you, and then reverted.)

Same thing here. On the 30th you made thirteen edits to this article. Four or five are rather trivial, hardly worth troubling about. But several of your edits are quite troubling. Let's examine them. (Your edit summary in parentheses.)

  • 01:06 (Not italicized in the source.)

> the next strong earthquake to occur in a region.

Flat out false. "next" is italicized in the source. Did you even check? Or do you just make up reasons as you go along?
  • 01:07 (→top: It is or it isn't. We shouldn't hedge )

> earthquake forecasting, which can be defined as the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard.

Again false. It is not "either or", as there is more than one definition of "earthquake forecasting"; it can be defined differently. But the lede of this article is not the place to thrash out that kind of detail.
  • 01:08 (Copy edit.)

> Prediction can be further distinguished from earthquake warning systems, which upon detection of an earthquake, provide a real-time warning of seconds to neighboring regions that might be affected.

At this point in the text "earthquake prediction" has just been distinguished from earthquake forecasting. It is then further distinguished from earthquake warning systems. Which, by their nature, can give warning only on the order of seconds, not minutes, hours, or days. Furthermore, they can only warn neighboring regions, because such systems are real-time, and in the immediate area of the earthquake the quake has already happened.
  • 01:09 (→top: Meaningless. Every time period is made up of seconds.)

> provide a warning of seconds to regions that might be affected.

Bullshit. "Every time period" can also be seen as centuries, or fractions there of; so what? The normal and ordinary usage here is an implied on the order of some few seconds, distinguished from whole minutes or hours. If you failed to understand this a better corrective would be to make "on the order of" explicit. Simply removing "of seconds" leaves the sense wide open to broad, and incorrect, interpretation, and the reader vulnerable to misinterpreting the meaning.
  • 01:09 (Fix tense.)

> was had been no valid short term prediction.

Fix? The original version is a close paraphrase of the source (in Wang et al., 2006, p. 787): "there was[emphasis added]no official short-term prediction". For all that you might disagree with Wang et al.'s sense of tense I thnk we should stick with the source.
  • 03:15 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Simplify for the non-expert, please)
  • 03:16 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Doesn't make a lick o' sense.)
Two edits that tagged the following sentences with {{huh}} ("clarification needed"):

> In southern California about 6% of M≥3.0[clarification needed] earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km."

> In central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 48 hours and 30 km.

WTF? It seems pretty straight-forward to me. Where precisely do you have a problem? Is the use of "M" instead of "magnitude" not simple enough? Or (heaven forbid!) do you want more details? We could hyper-link those, but judging by some of your other edits you are death on "over-linking".
  • 03:19 (Needs to be written in a way that everybody can understand.)

> Added {{Confusing|reason=the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert}}

What jargon? You have not provided any specifics, nor pointed to any particular sections. From your two preceding edits it might be inferred you think that not "everybody can understand" the use of "M", "≥", and "magnitude". (Which I grant, as just one child, or one idiot, is sufficient to negate "everybody". So what?) But these are not jargon, and are in no way "comprehensible only to an expert"; they are comprehensible to many whose only expertise comes from reading a newspaper. As Dawnseeker has said: "The reader needs to be responsible for being aware of the fundamentals." (I say: some competence is required.) Even so, you have shown no instances of anything, jargon or otherwise, "comprehensible only to an expert", let alone that the article is "replete" with such instances.

For all of the above reasons (and because I am disinclined to take further time and trouble to save your trivial edits) I am going to revert the entirety of your edits, including the tag (on the basis it "did not belong when placed or was added in error"). If you want to restore the tag, fine, but be prepared to show that "the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Earthquake prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Earthquake prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left out new method based on gravity waves

[edit]

The largest earthquakes can now be detected via gravity waves. This gives relatively accurate determination just about instantly (speed of light) when measured at a suitable distance. Suitable distances far enough for the equipment to have some time to process the result before the normal earthquake arrives, but otherwise rather close. It's something like 1000 km. 97.104.70.92 (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing earthquake prediction – which is about anticipating future earthquakes, that have not yet happened – with earthquake warning, which is about events that have already happened, but at a remote location. Also, your "can now be detected via gravity waves" is little more than "has been", with various caveats. As Susan Hough said back in November: "But much work remains before gravity signals can be considered a reliable tool in the crucial minutes after a big quake." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN

[edit]

In Physics Today November 2010 issue the following review of Hough's book is published by Roger Musson: "My main reservation with the book is that it is rather US-centric, as even the author admits. ... Briefly mentioned is Greece's VAN project ... that classic case - it led to a great debate in the 1990s among seismologists about whether earthquakes could be predicted - deserved a more detailed exposition". The simple phrase "Most seismologists consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked" (Hough 2010b p=195)" included in the VAN section of the article is not justified and thus is to be removed.--EyeCont (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 Roger Musson also discussed the VAN project in "The Million Death Quake: The Science of Predicting Earth's Deadliest Natural Disaster". On pages 171-174 saying "Events in 1999 largely sank VAN in Greece as a credible system". This refers to both a M 5.9 quake near Athens that the VAN group failed to register a prediction for (but claimed that they had predicted it anyway) and their prediction of a larger quake to occur shortly afterwards in central Greece that never happened. He doesn't dismiss the approach completely, but says that "If anything successful comes out of VAN in the long run, it will probably come from Japan". Mikenorton (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seismology is rather US-centric, and even more specifically California-centric (because of how it developed), but that in no way "justifies" removing Hough's assessment of VAN. Hough is a respected seismologist, who states clearly (albeit bluntly) what many other seismologists say more obliquely. Considering both other sources (e.g., the ICEF report) and the limited circle of VAN supporters it seems quite reasonable that Hough has fairly stated the mainstream consenus. There is considerable evidence that VAN should be considered WP:FRINGE; that is, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field", and therefore "must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.". Your "polishing" of the VAN claims (here and also at VAN method) thus amounts to "unwarranted promotion of fringe theories", and I am considering whether all of your edits ought to be removed on that basis.
If there is recent work by or regarding VAN you think should be considered by all means please bring it to our attention. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCont: Your edits, here and at VAN method (and these are the totality of your editing to-date), show a definite tendency towards removing content critical of VAN, and adding content – usually from the small coterie of VAN supporters – that attempts to support ("polish") their results. This amounts to a taking of a side, a violation of WP:NPOV. As the "VAN method" is a fringe view rejected by mainstream science ("debunked", even), these edits also constitute unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory. For these reasons I am going to revert your recent edits.

Please note: where you see possible problems the preferred approach for addressing them is not removal of content, but tagging, with comments on the Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the version that updates the literature. Please be specific on justifying your changes, point by point.--EyeCont (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I will again revert them.
You are not simply "updating the literature". You are removing content that is critical of VAN, and adding questionable content that promotes VAN, in a manner that (as I just explained) violates WP:NPOV and WP:PROFRINGE. I have reverted your "Bold" edits per what we call the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD); it is now for you justify your edits. Your subsequent restoration of your edits, without discussion, amounts to WP:Edit warring. Also, your additional removal of the terminal punctuation from all of the {citation} templates corrupts the citations, and thereby violates WP:CITEVAR.
As I said before: where you see problems in the article you should tag them, so they can be examined and discussed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit has been justified.

  1. predict earthquakes of magnitude larger than 2.8" was never published by VAN - specific citation (not Wikipedia editor's claim) is needed in order to restore the sentense - neither 2.8 nor 2.6 have been published, as written and "corrected" by J. Johnson
  2. but also a false alarm rate of 89%" - such a claim has been never published - there is no such number in the specific page of the book
  3. 2020 update - the 2013 Tectonophysics paper and the 2020 Applied Sciences paper consitute literature update
  4. restore of non-consensus delete of Nov 16, 2017 - a consensus has been achieved among several editors, which has been published from March 3, 2017 until November 16, 2017, but J. Johnson violated this consensus
  5. The authenticity of the source (Geller 1996, page 223) i.e. "a Cosmos news (an electronic bulletin board) story dated June 20, 1995" cannot be checked. Such a bulletin board had not existed. Geller says: "A Greek colleague kindly sent me translations of some news stories. According to a Cosmos news..."

J. Johnson acts under WP:OWN of the article and violates NPOV. FRINGE is his own point of view. See "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics" part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series", Springer 2011, edited by Harsh K. Gupta, in the Section "EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS AND PREDICTION" which ends as follows, just before its summary: "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain" natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified [Sarlis et al. 2008]. This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days [Uyeda and Kamogawa 2008]. This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data". In view of the above I am restoring the updated content together with adding the excerpt from "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics".--EyeCont (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That chapter in the Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics is written by Uyeda and others, so is not independent of them. These additions seriously lack any views of seismologists/geophysicists who are not part of the rather small group of VAN supporters. That independent view is really needed or all those extra citations do is tell us that people who have supported the VAN method, continue to support the VAN method, which is hardly a surprise. Mikenorton (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:OWNership to insist on adherence to WP policies and practices; it is edit-warring to keep repeating questioned edits. The determination that VAN is fringe is based on the nature of its promotion (by small group of proponents that cross-cite a lot), considerable criticism in the mainstream scientific literature, non-observance, non-acceptance as a viable technique by the scientific community, and explicit statements by seismological authorities ("resoundingly debunked"). The determination made here is not my – or anyone else's – "own point of view", it is the consensus of the editors, including input from some real, mainstream seismologists. On the other hand, your contributions show that you are a single-purpose editor (editing only this article and VAN method), whose edits either promote VAN, or remove content critical of VAN, distinctly demonstrating non-neutral violation of WP:NPOV.
Regarding your specific points:
1. Off-hand I don't recall if the original VAN 1981 paper is available, but the "2.6" claim has been reported by a reliable source. Which is cited, but if you find the linkage not clear enough just tag it, and I will remedy that.
2. I believe the false alarm rate of 89% came up in 2016. It may have been a calculation (which, incidentally, we are allowed to). If you really want to insist on the point: tag it, and I might look around for the data source.
3. Your "literature update" shows only the same old proponents refining the same old crap; there is nothing to show increased acceptance in the mainstream. (And the Applied Science journal is published by MDPI, whose peer-review has been questioned.)
4. Perhaps you could point to what consensus you allege I "violated" in 2016? And as you seem to be quite familiar with the past history here perhaps you would reveal under what name(s) you have previously participated here.
5. The source cited here is Geller, not Cosmos. We are not required to second-guess why Geller trusts that Cosmos is a true report.
Your quote from the 2013 encyclopedia article, that "seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data", is rather amazing. Since 1981 "VAN" as been claiming an amazing role for SES data alone. That has still not come about. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the specific points 1, 2, and 5, J.Johnson did not provide any concrete source to substantiate content critical of VAN, thus fully justifying my deletion of the corresponding WP text. As for point 4: Everyone can verify that at 06:30, 23 November 2017 at “VAN seismic electric signals” J.Johnson deleted “Natural Time” for “lack of notability” which has been inserted since 3 March 2017 after a consensus achieved among several editors (see Talk at 22:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)). J.Johnson characterizes this VAN material –comprising several tens of papers in well known refereed journals- as “fringe” although it has been cited more than thousand times by researchers worldwide during the last 18 years, i.e., after 2002. To the contrary what seems to be “fringe” is the Criticism of VAN, because the limited circle of VAN critics comprising almost exclusively Geller and co-authors, although have published a lot of criticism during the 1990s, they did not write any paper with content critical of VAN after 2002, i.e., during the last 18 years (cf. ICEF report in 2011 mentions one only criticism of VAN in 1996). Thus, in view of the above, we restore the previous content with the updated literature, and do hope that this time J.Johnson will consent to mention also the work of VAN during the last two decades. Otherwise, it would be obviously unscientific and unfair to mention in the WP article solely the criticism of VAN during 1990s.--EyeCont (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted again as there is no consensus here to make these additions. As to the 5 specific points, I would urge you to tag 1 & 2. JJ the RfC linked above seems pretty clear that "natural time" should get mentioned, although that is all that it asks for. The Geller quote is what it is - people can judge that for themselves. As to more recent criticism, I just came across this. Otherwise I stand by my earlier comments. Mikenorton (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: Thanks for the link. I haven't been keeping up with this, and that looks like an excellent source. I suppose "natural time domain" could be mentioned, but it doesn't rate more than a sentence, as, aside from "VAN" and their groupies, it doesn't have any mainstream notability, or even presence. As far as I can tell, it's just mumbo-jumbo. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EyeCont: you have not asked for any sources ("concrete" – whatever that is supposed to mean – or otherwise) for that content, you just proceeded to delete it. That is NOT justified. You have also deleted content (such as "resoundingly debunked") that is sourced, showing that your basis for deletion is not really lack of sourcing, but content critical of VAN.
That there has been very little criticism of VAN since 2011 is because, as Susan Hough has said, most consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked", and therefore no longer notable enough to warrant comment. If the VAN method, and "natural time", are indeed notable, it should be easy to show they are used by mainstream seismologists. So show us: where, outside of a small group of VAN proponents, there is anything more than a vanishingly small mention of "natural time domain", or any indication that anyone is using VAN "seismic electric signals" to predict earthquakes.
Attributing "Criticism of VAN" as arising solely from "the limited circle of VAN critics comprising almost exclusively Geller and co-authors" is factually incorrect, and even asinine. Describing it as fringe is utter BULLSHIT. But we can hardly expect any better from a WP:SPA editor (with a possible COI) who is not here for the encyclopedia. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: I understand that you reverted as there was no consensus here to make these additions. By the same token, however, I revert again since J.Johnson had previously reverted it (see point 4) without any consensus just by claiming lack of notability and in addition without providing concrete sources as I asked for (regarding specific sources for the points 1, 2 and 5).

That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works, You made substantial changes and have been reverted. It is up to you to reach consensus with other editors in this discussion, which you have failed to do. Rather than making large-scale changes, come up with some proposals. Mikenorton (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J.Johnson: Concerning your unfair personal attacks on the VAN workers & natural time, I am not going to comment on. I would like, however, to urge strongly the WP editors and WP readers to have a look on the ISI Web of Science to visualize the international impact of VAN research & natural time and compare it with that of the VAN critics (mainly Geller et al, though Geller claims that “Geller is widely recognized as one of the world's leading seismologists” in his official site https://www.rjgeller.com/).--EyeCont (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JJ is right in pointing out that you have only edited on VAN topics here on Wikipedia, suggesting that is your only purpose here. It's clear that you are acting as an advocate for the VAN method and that you believe that the VAN group are not being treated well here. That does indicate that you have a strong POV. Mikenorton (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These "unfair personal attacks on the VAN workers & natural time" you are not commenting on (ha) don't exist. Likewise for "international impact": no one is using SES or "natural time domain" to predict earthquakes, and as far as I can see no one writes on these except for Varotsos, Skordas, Sarlis, and their co-authors. Who do keep churning out papers (with lots of cross-citations) full of mumbo-jumbo, but all their citations have little impact, and less notability.
Your view that the VAN critics are "mainly Geller et al." and "almost exclusively Geller and co-authors" is, as I said before, factually incorrect. It is also curiously similar to a view held be a previous anonymous VAN supporter here, who was linked to the University of Athens (and thus to Varotsos, Skordas, and Sarlis). So I will point out to you: if are connected in any way with the Univ. of Athens, or Varotos, Sarlis, or Skordas, then you have a possible conflict of interest, which you are expected to declare.
And as you have already been advised: alleged issues with the content are best addressed by tagging them, not with large unilateral edits. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As EyeCont has been too bashful to respond, I have proceed with some edits that address some of his points, as well as some other outstanding deficiencies. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCont: with your tagging yesterday of the two VAN related sections with {{verifiability}} (with no further explanation than a link to a comment of yours here a month ago), and also your edits yesterday to VAN method (here and here), it seems necessary to remind you of what I said just above: if are connected in any way with the Univ. of Athens, or Varotos, Sarlis, or Skordas, then you have a possible conflict of interest, which you are expected to declare. Note that COI editing is strongly discouraged, and may result in a block. (See WP:COI.)

Also, as a WP:SPA account with a demonstrated non-neutral viewpoint your edits here, and especially your repeated attempts to add the same material, are very suspect. As Mikenorton said on 5 Feb: there is no consensus here to make these additions.

When you add the verifiability tag you are expected specify what claims are disputed. You have not done so, only pointing to your comment above (@ 14:02) where you mention Sarlis et al. 2008 and Uyeda and Kamogawa 2008. (Are those the claims you dispute?) That lack, plus your edits at VAN method, suggest that you are not acting in good-faith.

For all of these reasons I am going rollback your recent edits. I strongly suggest that if have any bona fide edits – or better, suggestions – that you discuss them here first. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At J.Johnson: My bona fide suggestion (following your own strong suggestion) is as follows by recalling the five points I explained in detail more than a month ago: Since a consensus had been achieved among several editors, published from March 3, 2017, until November 16, 2017, I now restore exactly this version, as edited by Jerry Russel (talk/contribs) at 22:36, 3 March 2017. In this version, I tag points 1 & 2 (as recommended by Mikenorton (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2020). In view of the fact that these two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN) and should be deleted, I am tagging the two VAN related sections with {verifiability} and also your edits to VAN method. If you consent to the above, we can start bona fide discussion on each subsequent addition from either side until a new consensus will be again established.--EyeCont (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A community consensus has been achieved back in 2017, indeed. The discussion can start from this point and beyond.   ManosHacker talk 09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCont's rollback wiped out some of the changes I made addressing the very points he complained of, and lost other improvements made by other editors. This needs attention, but unfortunately I am rather occupied of late (off-pedia as well as on), so someone else needs to take point on this. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake memory in time and space

[edit]

While it is useful to know it I am not sure it assists the article.   ManosHacker talk 20:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some thing where I might agree with you, but more declaratively: that material does not "assist" the article. And very amatuerish. That is the kind of material that should not be allowed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections on VAN (tagged for verifiability)

[edit]

There are two excerpts tagged in the article regarding verifiability. A suggestion was made on February 3, 2020 at 14:02 which has not been properly addressed. These excerpts are:

  1. "of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to seven hours beforehand" ( from the Section "VAN seismic electric signals" )
  2. "but also a false alarm rate of 89%" ( from the Section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )

I tagged the above two excerpts (as recommended by Mikenorton on February 5, 2020 at 13:50) and, in view of the fact that the above two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN), I suggested that they should be deleted.--EyeCont (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literature update ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" or "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )

[edit]

This is a literature update that corresponds to the following addition to the last but one paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals" or to the second paragraph of the section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":

In 2013, the SES activities were found[Varotsos et al 2013] to be coincident with the minima of the fluctuations of the order parameter of seismicity, which have been shown[Christopoulos et al 2020] to be statistically significant precursors by employing the event coincidence analysis.[Donges et al 2016]

The above cited papers are the following:

  • Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S.; Lazaridou, M. S. (18 March 2013), "Seismic Electric Signals: An additional fact showing their physical interconnection with seismicity", Tectonophysics, 589: 116–125, Bibcode:2013Tectp.589..116V,
  • Christopoulos, Stavros-Richard G.; Skordas, Efthimios S.; Sarlis, Nicholas V. (January 2020), "On the Statistical Significance of the Variability Minima of the Order Parameter of Seismicity by Means of Event Coincidence Analysis", Applied Sciences, 10 (2): 662, doi:10.3390/app10020662
  • Donges, J.F.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Siegmund, J.F.; Donner, R.V. (2016), "Event coincidence analysis for quantifying statistical interrelationships between event time series", The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 225 (3): 471–487, arXiv:1508.03534, doi:10.1140/epjst/e2015-50233-y, ISSN 1951-6401

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literature update II ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" )

[edit]

The following addition is suggested to be added to the fourth paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals":

More recent work, by employing modern methods of statistical physics, i.e., detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA), multifractal DFA and wavelet transform revealed that SES are clearly distinguished from signals produced by man made sources.[Varotsos, Sarlis and Skordas 2003a][Varotsos, Sarlis and Skordas 2003b]

  • Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003a), "Long-range correlations in the electric signals that precede rupture: Further investigations", Physical Review E, 67 (2): 021109, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..67b1109V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021109, PMID 12636655
  • Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003b), "Attempt to distinguish electric signals of a dichotomous nature", Physical Review E, 68 (3): 031106, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..68c1106V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.031106, PMID 14524749

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Work update ( section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )

[edit]

The following source's content is suggested to be added to the third paragraph of the section: "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":

On the other hand, the Section "EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS AND PREDICTION" of "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics: part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series" (Springer 2011) edited by Harsh K. Gupta, ends as follows (just before its summary): "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain "natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified [Sarlis et al. 2008]. This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days [Uyeda and Kamogawa 2008]. This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data".

The above contains the exact excerpt from the encyclopedia. I feel should be reproduced in the article, as it answers an open question.--EyeCont (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing rebuttal ( section "2008: Greece (VAN)" )

[edit]

In the section "2008: Greece (VAN)" the following phrase should be added:

A rebuttal to this complaint, which insisted on the accuracy of this prediction, was published on the same issue. [Uyeda S., Kamogawa M., EOS Trans. AGU 91,163 (2010)]

  • Uyeda, Seiya; Kamogawa, Masashi (2010). "Reply to Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"". Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 91 (18): 163–163. doi:10.1029/2010EO180004. ISSN 2324-9250.

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on EyeCont's proposals

[edit]

I haven't had time to look these through in detail, but I'm not sure that adding so many extra citations to the Van method in this article, with no other views expressed will lead to any sort of balanced article. My impression, and it has to stay as that for obvious reasons, is that the mainstream earthquake prediction/forecasting community are just ignoring the VAN method. What this article needs is views from uninterested third parties that show some sort of general acceptance of the method (or otherwise), so if you have some of those, they would be good to see. Mikenorton (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Significant space has been given here for inline criticism (in fact criticism pervades the whole article). Critique without the answers addressing it is biased but the specific article is not the right place for the history of VAN method scientific debate. As duplicates between this article and VAN method article should be avoided, I propose migrating the debate there. This will result to a clean-up here. The method can be presented in a summary followed by the mainstream seismology view and a link for further reading in VAN method article.   ManosHacker talk 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, let's discuss improvements to the the VAN method article on its talk page, rather than here. I've just realised that I removed that page from my watchlist some time ago, when things were getting heated, so I've only now realised that EyeCont has proposed similar changes to both articles. That location is definitely the best place to sort things out and we should just have a summary in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across "Seismic electric signals (SES) and earthquakes: A review of an updated VAN method and competing hypotheses for SES generation and earthquake triggering" by Daniel Helman (2020), which contains an analysis and critique of the VAN method. To quote from the conclusions:

"The main question that interests the reader is "Does the VAN method work?" This may be seen as encompassing three questions - (1) whether predictions are predictive; (2) whether predictions issued using this method are actionable; and (3) whether other groups using this method are successful. The answers, unfortunately, are: (1) it is not clear whether they are predictive. The VAN group has done poorly in hosting their data publicly. Raw datasets and a list of predictions including misses and false positives are not present publicly. The updated time-series method describes medium-range predictions that then trigger short-term prediction algorithms using local seismic data, and in principle, this seems a plausible approach to prediction, i.e. via overlap of methods. Mechanisms for SES generation are physical and testable. The updated VAN method remains an unvalidated hypothesis. (2) Predictions issued using this method are not actionable beyond increased local seismic monitoring and increased awareness of earthquake safety. Predictions ought not be assumed correct—with the caveat that increased local seismic activity may be taken as precursory but outside the framework of a validated scientific process. Thus it is up to the relevant governmental body to make decisions in the absence of scientific confidence. Unfortunately the data are not present to make any stronger recommendation. (3) It is not clear whether the high rate of false positives has been overcome in trials in Japan or elsewhere". Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above VAN criticism by Helman mentioned by Mikenorton has been recently shown (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/5/583/htm) that does not stand.--EyeCont (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. That article was simply pointing out that the VAN group is now using a parameter named beta rather than kappa as its predictor. Still, there is no public hosting of their datasets. And it is still not clear whether their work is helpful for EQ prediction. 119.252.119.106 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel S. Helman - Education Division, College of Micronesia-FSM, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia / WHOIS 119.252.119.106 - State of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Possible WP:COI   ManosHacker talk 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

A section for politics regarding earthquake prediction is missing from the article.

  1. It should be stated that it is the state's responsibility to warn, not the scientists.
  2. There is a court decision on the case of Laquila EQ against scientists who publicly stated (predicted?) that the earthquake would not occur.[1]
  3. The possible actions for taking measures are not discussed and only evaquation is mentioned, which is impossible in large cities and megacities.
  4. Funding of precursor phenomena vs seismicity is also missing.

   ManosHacker talk 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Learning

[edit]

Is this citation acceptable? I think we should summarize this section.   ManosHacker talk 20:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the paragraph cited with the above, More, this arxiv citation should be replaced by the one finally published.   ManosHacker talk 00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty vs Impossibility Rehash

[edit]

Recently, an edit was made which added the text "However in a 2021 paper coauthored by 37 researchers in the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite, the main scientific objective of which is to investigate possible correlations between electromagnetic perturbations and the occurrence of major earthquakes,[1] it has been reported that, as shown in a more recent perspective,[2] the claims based on self-organized criticality stating that at any moment any small earthquake can eventually cascade to a large event, do not stand in view of the results obtained to date by natural time analysis."

This is essentially an appeal to authority to say what has already been said, namely "that earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed". I reverted the passage and added the Martucci et al (2021) reference to the subsequent paragraph. I did this because

  • These references are not a secondary source, nor have the primary sources been evaluated in the literature. If they had, we would be citing those discussions.
  • The number of authors is not relevant.
  • The possibility of EM perturbations accompanying major earthquakes is mentioned elsewhere.
  • Natural Time Analysis is already mentioned in the VAN section. Any additional discussion needs to be done either there or in its own section. Mentioning it in this place without explanation is confusing.

Elriana (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Martucci 2021 reference is a secondary source to Natural Time Analysis.
  • There exist a multitude of authors dealing with earthquake prediction, from a variety of universities and research institutes.
  • The focus here is on the "where any small earthquake has some probability of cascading into a large event" argument, not EM.
  • Natural time analysis is a distinct Wikipedia article. The method applies to diverse time series and not only to EQ time series or VAN method alone. In other words, NTA answers the question under discussion, quoted above.   ManosHacker talk 17:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Elriana, it's been a few days since my reply. I would appreciate if you can find some time to study the above. Regards,   ManosHacker talk 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Martucci et al. 2021
  2. ^ Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2020

Redirection

[edit]

Hello, this is Xiaohan Song a student from Stanford who created a wiki page for the earthquake cycle as my course project. Would you like to make the earthquake cycle term redirect to this new page?

Xiaohansong (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earthquake_prediction&oldid=1204621735"