Misplaced Pages

Talk:Earthquake prediction: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:58, 5 April 2017 edit31.185.125.113 (talk) →Omerbashich discovery← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:11, 7 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,947,394 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(107 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Earthquakes |importance=high}}
}}
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 9 |counter = 9
}} }}
{{WikiProject Earthquakes |class=B |importance=high}}
{{archives}} {{archives}}
] contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised ) prior to restructuring. ] contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised ) prior to restructuring.


== "Difficulty or impossibility" proposal ==
== Susan Hough <s>quote on VAN</s> quotes on VAN, Freund and co-seismic signals ==


We have left hanging an issue raised by Elriana (above, 02:44, 15 Feb.) about the "]" section, that "{{tq|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 <s>current</s> <u>recent</u> form it makes a bald assertion that "{{tq|Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible}}", makes reference to two theories without explaining what they mean, and then concludes: "{{tq| 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.
JJ recently added a quote from Susan Hough's book, regarding seismologist opinion of VAN. In context, the complete statement from Hough is: {{tq|As a prediction method, most seismologists consider VAN to have been resoundingly debunked. The remaining question is, if one or more specific predictions appear to be successful, is it because the earth does generate these signals, or because the method manages to benefit from the tendency of quakes to cluster. In short, are the fundamental scientific underpinnings of the method valid, or are they complete hogwash?}} In other words, Hough is making the same point I've been trying to explain for months here. Everyone can agree that the VAN method (based on SES) gives a very high false alarm rate and also suffers from some misses, so it fails as a practical EQ prediction method. But there is still an open controversy about whether there is any statistical correlation between SES and EQ, or whether some isolated predictive successes by VAN are a result of EQ clustering. ] (]) 19:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
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 .


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 <s>current</s> <u>recent</u> version it is not even mentioned, showing the glaring inadequacy of the present version.
:That is '''not''' the "complete statement", as you have omitted the context. On page 195 she is talking about ''short-term forecasts'' generally, and mentions VAN ''as an example''. Following "hogwash" she goes on to say: "{{tq|To answer this question, '''for VAN or AMR or M8''', one needs a basis of comparison.}}" (Emphasis added.) Which is most certainly NOT "{{tq|the same point have been trying explain for months}}". Her point is about the basis for assessing a prediction method, ''your'' point (as far as I can see that you have a single point) is that fringe views (and specifically VAN) are treated unfairly.


:In the case of VAN, the controversy about SES/EQ correlations is '''not''' "{{tq|still open}}", that having been settled back in 1995 or thereabouts. (What you like to call "ancient history".) Your assertion of that is ''false'', and shows a reckless disregard of factual reality. ~ ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 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. ~ ] (]) 21:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
:I endorse this proposal, and have brought back the section from Aug. 2014 (more or less). ] (]) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


::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. ~ ] (]) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
::It's interesting that in three different cases (the above discussion on Freund, this discussion on VAN, and our discussion of co-seismic magnetometer readings) we see different shades of meaning in Hough's book. In this case, "ask a seismologist" might be a very useful exercise. Her email is given at her USGS website. Would you like to contact her, or should I? Are there Misplaced Pages protocol rules for this sort of thing? ] (]) 03:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
:::Thank you also, JJ, for restoring the sources. The article is looking better all the time. ] (]) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


:::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.] (]) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
:::I suspect it would ''not'' be a useful exercise, as (given your response re Dr. Vidale's comments) you would question or ignore even quite definite statements that you don't agree with. At the very least you really should decide in advance what your question is, and then not belabor the point. And if you want to convince me you have the more accurate viewpoint it will have to a better question than what you have asked so far. ~ ] (]) 01:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


== Brain bender ==
::::OK, I will wait until we have a chance to discuss further. I'm short on time today, but will return to this as soon as I can. ] (]) 01:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


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. ] (]) 03:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} In her Chapter 15 (starting at p. 191), Hough is discussing reasons why some EQ predictions appear to have been successful, including some by VAN. She goes on to talk about "parent-daughter" statistics, and the elevated probability of another earthquake in the wake of the parent. (Are earthquakes feminine?) She discusses Rundle & Turcotte's Pattern Informatics (PI) method as an elaboration of this basic concept. She says that Turcotte referred to the results of their method as "prediction", but she appears to dispute this characterization. She writes: {{tq|the distinction between forecasting and prediction starts to blur.... The difference between prediction and short-term forecasting might sound like a distinction in semantics, but of course it is much more than that. Whatever precise terms one uses to define a meaningful short-term earthquake prediction, the public has at least a general understanding of what earthquake prediction is about. In short, prediction is saying when and where an earthquake will strike, and how big it will be. Producing a map that shows that future earthquakes are more likely to strike near one of a large number of blotchy measles spots is not what the public understands to be earthquake prediction.}} She then complains that whether PI is any better than simple parent-daughter statistics is "difficult to say".


: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. ] 23:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hough goes on to argue that forecasts involving a weak short-term probability increase can be useful. {{tq|For example, one wouldn’t evacuate Palm Springs based on a one in twenty chance of a large earthquake but one might reasonably move fire engines outside of fire houses for a few days....}} and furthermore, {{tq|These short-term forecast methods are also important for scientists’ continuing quest to understand earthquake predictability, in particular to evaluate proposed earthquake prediction methods.}}


{{ping|BeenAroundAWhile}} Brain bender??? Graduate student theses? Are you saying that "{{tq|the average interested person}}" can ''not'' "{{tq|simply read this and understand the main points}}"? Where the hell are you coming from? Well, perhaps from ], where you said: "{{tq|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.)
This is the point where Hough says that '''as a prediction method''', VAN has been debunked. I think the only way to read this, is where "prediction method" means a reliable short-term prediction which might be a basis for evacuating Palm Springs. She then goes on to ask whether the earth does generate SES signals, or whether the VAN method is "complete hogwash". She says that such a question can be addressed by comparing prediction methods such as VAN to parent-daughter methods. She concludes {{tq|In recent years scientists have begun to make such comparisons. They reveal that, occasional bold statements and press releases notwithstanding, we are not there yet.}}


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.)
I would be the first to admit that when it comes to stating conclusions about VAN, Hough's writing is not as clear as I would like it to be. It seems to me that she is saying that while VAN has certainly failed as a reliable short-term EQ prediction method, nevertheless the relationship between SES and EQ is still an open question. But maybe she's saying that these unnamed scientists who have just begun to make the relevant comparisons, have completed their evaluation of VAN? If so, where are the results and why doesn't she provide a reference in the notes section? This is why I think it would be interesting to get Hough's personal statement, if possible.


* 01:06 (Not italicized in the source.)
Hough's chapter 10 (starting on p. 125) also covers VAN, Freund, Corralitos, and other aspects of seismo-electromagnetism. On p. 130 she notes that EQ prediction research is more popular internationally than it is in the US or Europe, and also: {{tq|In recent decades scientists who study earthquakes have parted company along disciplinary as well as international lines. As earthquake prediction fell out of favor among scientists who call themselves seismologists it has been embraced more enthusiastically by (some) scientists with expertise in different fields, for example rock magnetism and solid-state physics.}} This supports my view of a split between seismologists and more broadly trained geophysicists, which would include Hough herself.
> {{tq|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 )
Freund is singled out as a prominent representative of this school. She says (p. 133): {{tq|Among the torchbearers in this community, solid-state physicist Friedemann Freund stands tall. His research, including laboratory investigations, provide compelling evidence that battery currents can be created when certain rocks are subjected to stress— what has come to be known as Freund physics.}} With reference to the RfC above, I suggest this supports my view that Freund is at least as prominent as VAN, if not more so. After giving a discussion of why mainstream seismologists remain skeptical of Freund, Hough concludes that {{tq|the idea of electromagnetic precursors is not entirely out to lunch}} and that {{tq|Freund physics is not entirely black magic.}}
> {{tq|'']'', which <s>can be defined as</s> 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.)
To be quite frank, Hough's statements seem almost like textbook psychological priming: associating VAN with "hogwash" and Freund with "black magic" and "out to lunch", while specifically avoiding making those actual claims, and offering some good reasons to believe otherwise.
> {{tq|Prediction can be <s>further</s> distinguished from ]s, which upon detection of an earthquake, provide a <s>real-time</s> warning of seconds to <s>neighboring</s> 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 ]s. 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.)
Finally, there is the odd statement that {{tq|Magnetic instruments can and do record earthquakes. But upon close inspection, one finds, without exception, an absence of true co-seismic electromagnetic signals.}} One possible interpretation is that she is saying all the allegations of co-seismic signals are artifacts, such as mechanical vibration of the magnetometer. But if this is what she means, is she unaware Johnston's papers that claim the opposite? Or is she denying them without even acknowledging their existence? Or does she mean something entirely different? None of these three alternatives seems reasonable, so again it would be interesting to ask her what she's trying to say with this rather enigmatic argument. 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
> {{tq|provide a warning <s>of seconds</s> 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.)
PS: I've written this up all in one place, so that if we decide to contact Hough, it's all here in one thread. JJ, if it would make you happier, the material could easily be split out to the other two threads where these matters have initially been mentioned. ] (]) 04:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
> {{tq|<s>was</s> <u>had been</u> no valid short term prediction.}}
:Fix? The original version is a close paraphrase of the source (in Wang et al., 2006, p. 787): "{{tq|there ''was'' }}{{tq| 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)
:Jerry, what is your point here? Are you objecting (for some yet unstated reason) to my citation of Dr. Hough's "{{tq|resoundingly debunked}}" statement? Or are you wanting to argue about it? You are not innocently asking honest questions; that is belied by your questioning of her statement about "magnetic instruments", as I answered that a week ago (at ]).
* 03:16 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Doesn't make a lick o' sense.)
:Two edits that tagged the following sentences with {{tl|huh}} ("clarification needed"):
> {{tq|In southern California about 6% of M≥3.0{{huh}} earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km."}}


> {{tq|In central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 48 hours and 30 km.}}
:Despite your edit summary that "{{tq|this is topic consolidation, not topic drift}}", it is entirely unclear what your topic is, other than Susan Hough. (You have gone beyond the "quote on VAN".) Nor have you shown any reason to contact her, other than your spurious questions. So again: what is your point? Indeed, just what is your ''topic''? ~ ] (]) 22:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
: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".
:: In case it is in doubt, my opinion is that Freund's and SES claims are utterly without basis in observations that have been vetted by the larger seismological community, and there is no theoretical reason that such precursors should be observable. Anything is possible in the world, including time travel and transmuting plastic to gold, but to present these precursors as having any basis in observation or theory does a disservice to public understanding of science.] (]) 17:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
:::Hello Dr. Vidale, thanks for the clarification. Misplaced Pages has an article on ] which I hadn't seen before. In the RfC above, Staszek Lem argued that Freund should be mentioned, briefly, and debunked. He says {{tq|There is no other way to combat public ignorance.}} Do you agree, or do you feel it is better to avoid mentioning Freund entirely in this article?


* 03:19 (Needs to be written in a way that everybody can understand.)
:::JJ, my topic for this section is now Susan Hough and her book, and whether we should contact her for clarifications and/or dialog. We had been discussing her in three different sections relating to three different topics: this section, on the VAN quote; above in the RfC, on her statements about Freund; and at ], about her statements about co-seismic signals. My proposal is to consolidate the discussions here. To further clarify my intent, I have updated the heading for this section. Do you agree to this consolidation, or would you insist on resuming the three conversations independently in their original locations? ] (]) 21:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
> Added <nowiki>{{Confusing|reason=the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert}}</nowiki>
:'''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'' "{{tq|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 "{{tq|comprehensible only to an expert}}"'''; they are comprehensible to many whose only expertise comes from reading a newspaper. As Dawnseeker has said: "{{tq|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, "{{tq|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
::::So now you want, what, a book review?? All this because I quoted her?
was added in error"). If you want to restore the tag, fine, but be prepared to show that "{{tq|the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert}}". ~ ] (]) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::What is your precise question here, and where are you going with this? I don't know why you want to consolidate the SM discussion here – you asked a question, I answered it, and how does it go any further unless you dispute it?


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::BTW, I suggest that you do ''not'' contact Dr. Hough, as you seem to wanting to argue the points. But if you do, it's entirely on you; there is no "we" about it. ~ ] (]) 01:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::I have no firm opinion about whether Freund should be called out for criticism. Given his penchant for spinning arguments in esoterica in which no one in the world is following the discussion, then declaring victory because no one care to unravel it, maybe better to not mention him at all.] (]) 00:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::::That's pertinent to ]; perhaps you could say as much there? ~ ] (]) 23:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::::Dr. {{ping|Vidale}}, I wonder if you think there would be any value in contacting Dr. Hough for clarification of her remarks in her book? At Misplaced Pages, we are supposed to summarize and paraphrase our sources, rather than quoting them directly. Hough spends most of a chapter in her book discussing Freund -- laying out his theories, discussion seismologists' criticisms, and ultimately concluding that he is "not entirely out to lunch". This is rather enigmatic, but basically I think it's clear enough to work with. Regarding VAN, I'm claiming that Hough's qualification that it has been debunked '''as a prediction method''' leaves open the possibility that there is still some controversy in her mind about whether SES might be useful in short-term forecasting, where the goal is to achieve a modest improvement in the probability estimate provided by parent-daughter methods. But I'm self-aware enough to know that I might be reading things into her words, and I wouldn't want to misuse her quote here if that's not what she meant. Also, she says that there are no "true" co-seismic electromagnetic signals. I'm not sure whether she is saying that the claims of magnetometer readings are artifacts, or whether she means that ULF magnetic signals that don't propagate well are not truly "electromagnetic", or whether she's just not aware of Johnston's work which purports to show that these co-seismic signals do exist.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002130801/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf
::::::I'm prepared to send Hough an email myself. But if it comes from a group here including well-known experts, there's perhaps a better chance of getting a substantive response? Or do you agree with JJ, that there's really not a well-formulated question worth asking? ] (]) 19:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161211/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf
:::::::My impression is that occasionally (twice?) co-seismic EM signals have appeared. No precursory signals proven connected to earthquakes have been seen, although a signal (or instrumental malfunction) before the Loma Prieta earthquake was puzzling. I seriously doubt Sue was attributing any power to SES signals. Personally, I don't see the point of great care in describing methods extremely unlikely to have geophysical relevance, which are mostly likely junk science. ] (]) 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::::::Indeed. I suspect that Pham et al. (2002) pretty much blew away any vestigial possibiity that "SES" were in any way seismic. Jerry: your "{{tq|leaves open the possibility}}" is just grasping at straws. It is ''quibbling''. You have quite overlooked that VAN's significance was based ENTIRELY on being a successful ''prediction method''. A point which Hough mentions, but you seem to have missed. ~ ] (]) 23:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
To clarify this on Jerry's question, co-seismic EM signals do not support earthquake prediction. Pre-seismic EM come before an earthquake and mechanisms proposed on the observations do not consider any co-seismic EM signals as part of the preparation process, more than they are useless. Pre-seismic electrics and EM are said to be generated by the preparation processes in several steps, the first of which seems to be the emission of SES, followed by the emissions because of smaller earthquakes occurring around the main fault to be ruptured, and finally the main fault itself, before the earthquake. It is not always expected for SES or EM to reach the surface, and in EM this is usually due to the depth of the source of EM or being underwater, more than the magnitude of the eq(s). Magnetics have better reach to the surface and SES follow specific paths. Read Susan Hough under this.-AA-] (]) 07:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
:Yes, some people ''say'' there could be pre-seismic signals, and come up with all sorts of imaginative mechanisms. But Malcom Johnston's (et al., 2006) observations of the Parkfield quake pretty much blows away all such speculation: "{{tq|No significant changes in local magnetic field occurred .... Nor were changes in magnetic and electric field in the ULF band observed....}}" And very specifically: {{quote frame|No electric field disturbances of the form proposed by Varotsos ''et al.'' (1993a,b) and Nagao ''et al.'' (1996) to precede earthquakes were observed above the instrument noise on the various electrodes. This noise level is more than an order of magnitude below the signals reported by Varotsos ''et al.'' (1993a,b).}}
: Writing at a professional level tends to leave out obvious inferences, so for everyone who may missed it we have Hough's pithy summary: ''resoundingly debunked''.


== External links modified (January 2018) ==
:Jerry's ''assertion'' (''not'' a question!) that "{{tq|there is still an open controversy}}" ''about'' SES quite begs the question of whether such "signals" even exist. Our most authoritative evidence is: they do not exist, except as random industrial/cultural noise. ~ ] (]) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:: Arguing back to 20 years ago about industrial noise is a self-opinion, after all the publications since. Did I say somewhere, when I speak on EM or magnetics, that I refer only to VAN?-AA-] (]) 01:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


I have just modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::''Not'' "self-opinion", but from a reliable, ''authoritative'' source, with a much more solid scientific foundation than VAN ever had. ''Or any other claim'' for "EM or magnetics". As to this recurring dismissal of "old" science: VAN's claim they could exclude industrial noise is also circa 1996 ("20 years ago"), while "{{tq|'''all the publications since'''}}" would include Pham et al. (2002, tracing SES-like signals to industrial sources; citations in the article), Johnston et al. (2006, quoted above), Park, Dalrymple & Larsen (2007), and Kappler, Morrison & Egbert (2010: "{{tq|no effects found that can be reasonably characterized as precursors}}"). Notably: <b>''no''</b> "{{tq|publications since}}" by VAN. VAN was soundly criticized, they never satisfactorily answered the criticism, and since then have been ignored. ~ ] (]) 20:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119050306/http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument to http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.protezionecivile.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055905/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/parkf.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/kjvan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130427234807/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602192133/http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751 to http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429162009/http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf to http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/ioangrl98.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/pepilamia99.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603121040/http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf to http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.upo.es/eps/troncoso/Citas/ESWA10/citaESWA-3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161347/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::: During the RFC I have brought here a very recent publication by eminent USA scientists, which is based on natural time analysis, and I believe it drew attention. JJ's claim that nowdays VAN method is ignored is just his opinion. Here are three publications during the last two years (2015 & 2016) that report very positive experimental results on the detection of precursory seismic electric signals before major earthquakes in Taiwan, China and Japan.
::::*
::::*
::::*
:::: -AA-] (]) 17:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::::That, of course, is ''your'' "opinion" as a partisan advocate, not a neutral weigher of views. ''My'' opinion is based on the statement of our guest expert that "{{tq|'''no one I know is even bothering to follow the claims closely, let alone check them'''}}", which certainly sounds like "ignore". (<small>See {{diff2|749311871|18:36, 13 Nov}}. For extended comments see ].</small>) Dr. Vidale went on to say: "{{tq| It is not hard to get very unlikely results published even in good journals just by being persistent enough to eventually get 2 or 3 uncritical reviewers}}". Which would seem to apply to your references: they are ''speculative'', with tentative and uncorroborated findings (and the second ''assumes'' that "SEMS" exist). They barely mention Varotsos et al., and certainly do not show that VAN actually predicted any quakes, nor answered any of the very devastating criticism of VAN. That mention seems more like an echo chamber, where the proponents keep mentioning everyone in the field to build up their h-index, and make it seem like there is lively development. I think they are "{{tq|full of sound and fury, signifying nothing}}" (Shakespeare).


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::If anyone has any doubt of all that just refer to Dr. Hough's statement: "''' resoundingly debunked'''." ~ ] (]) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


== Left out new method based on gravity waves ==
:::::: We all agree there is no earthquake prediction according to the strict criteria. But, pre-seismic electromagnetics are there. From all over the world, not just Greece. Dr. Vidale's "<small>If EM precursors are treated with dignity in Misplaced Pages, that would run contrary to the top earthquake experts' opinions in every country except perhaps Greece.</small>" comment was not that careful. I have doubts he follows the literature and I think he just expresses his opinion.-AA-] (]) 03:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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. ] (]) 06:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Does "all" include Panayiotis Varotsos? Has he retracted his various claims of prediction?


: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 "{{tq|can now be detected via gravity waves}}" is little more than "has been", with various caveats. As Susan Hough said back in November: "{{tq|But much work remains before gravity signals can be considered a reliable tool in the crucial minutes after a big quake.}}" ~ ] (]) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Your second sentence is, at best, wishful thinking. And your third sentence is specfically and definitely contradicted for the central San Andreas Fault by Johnston et al. 2006, ''which I just quoted'' (above).


== Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN ==
:::::::The rest of your comment is a slur. It is uncivil, totally uncalled for, and does nothing to forward this discussion. ''Dr.'' Vidale has a PhD degree in seismology, and is quite active in the field, which is vastly more than we can say for you. And he certainly does follow the ''mainstream'' literature (though likely not all of the secondary tier journals). Whereas it appears that you don't even follow the discussion at hand. ~ ] (]) 22:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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.--] (]) 13:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
== "Difficulty or impossibility" section ==


:In 2012 Roger Musson also discussed the VAN project in "The Million Death Quake: The Science of Predicting Earth's Deadliest Natural Disaster". 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". ] (]) 18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Cannot make any sense. WTH is "on decision-theoretic grounds"? How " self-organized criticality" implies an (im)possibility? Stc. ] (]) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


:''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 ]; that is, "{{tq|an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field}}", and therefore "{{tq|must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.}}". Your "polishing" of the VAN claims (here and also at ]) thus amounts to "]", and I am considering whether all of your edits ought to be removed on that basis.
:The "study of the reasoning underlying an agent's choices", and trivial to wikilink. Matthews uses decision theory to determine "{{tq|how accurate earthquake predictions must be to server as a reliable basis for action.}}" Pretty interesting paper, actually, and not beyond the competency of a layman who is willing to give it proper attention. ~ ] (]) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


:If there is ''recent'' work by or regarding VAN you think should be considered by all means please bring it to our attention. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 22:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
::My issue with this section is that it does not make clear to an uninitiated reader *why* predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible. One version of an explanation could be, "Like most systems that exhibit self-organized criticality, the physical systems that produce earthquakes are slowly driven non-equilibrium systems with extended degrees of freedom and a high level of nonlinearity. Such systems do not behave deterministically. Instead, the behaviors follow some statistical distribution surrounding a long-term critical state. As such, individual events are intrinsically unpredictable. Only the relative probabilities of many possible events can be known." Or something like that.


EyeCont: Your edits, here and at ] (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 ]. As the "VAN method" is a ] view rejected by mainstream science ("debunked", even), these edits also constitute ]. For these reasons I am going to revert your recent edits.
::A more simplistic way of describing one problem with prediction is, "Earthquakes occur on large scale faults, but are controlled by the mechanics of rocks and grains on a microscopic scale. Each system/fault is made of so many grains over such a large area, each interacting with the grains and fluids surrounding it on such long timescales that we can never fully model the behavior of the system. Simplified equations that model sections of fault and groups of grains fail to capture the full range of possible outcomes. In order to fully model the system, we would need to build a model as complex as the system itself, essentially recreating the entire system down to the subatomic level. But we already have such a model in the system itself. Therefore studying the behavior of that system is the best we can ever do." At least that's my understanding. If I'm wrong, then someone definitely needs to make this section clearer. And possibly edit the ] article as well. ] (]) 02:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


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. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Of course it's not clear: that section was seriously hacked, now being only a fifth of the original. As you may recall, that section originally followed the list of notable predictions – most of which, it should be noted, are demonstrated failures – and began with:


I restored the version that updates the literature. Please be specific on justifying your changes, point by point.--] (]) 10:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{quote frame|As the preceding examples show, the record of earthquake prediction has been disappointing. Even where earthquakes have unambiguously occurred within the parameters of a prediction, statistical analysis has generally shown these to be no better than lucky guesses. The optimism of the 1970s that routine prediction of earthquakes would be "soon", perhaps within ten years, was coming up disappointingly short by the 1990s, and many scientists began wondering why. By 1997 it was being positively stated that earthquakes can not be predicted, which led to a notable debate in 1999 on whether prediction of individual earthquakes is a realistic scientific goal.}}


::And I will again revert them.
:::Three paragraphs followed with a half-dozen possible reasons for this general failure, but only "self-organized criticality" and "decision-theoretic grounds" survived subsequent editing. It should be noted that all of these possible reasons are speculations concerning an undeniable ''observation'': the total lack of skillful, repeatable prediction of earthquakes. They bear upon the question of whether EP is merely "fiendishly difficult", or intrinsically impossible. But the "pessimism" (as Uyeda and Varotsos call it) that EP is unlikely in the near term (contrary to the ''optimism'' still expressed in the popular media that it may be just around the corner) arises not from these speculations, but from the continuing disappointment of such hopes.
::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 ] and ]. I have reverted your "Bold" edits per what we call the ] (WP:BRD); it is now for ''you'' justify your edits. Your subsequent restoration of your edits, without discussion, amounts to ]. Also, your additional removal of the terminal punctuation from all of the {citation} templates corrupts the citations, and thereby violates ].


:::There are two central questions here: 1) why earth-scientists are generally pessimistic about EP, and 2) whether prediction is "fiendishly difficult or intrinsically impossible". In its current form this section ignores the fist question, and its treatment of the latter question is abysmal. As to corrections: I suggest restoration of the original. ~ ] (]) 22:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC) ::As I said before: where you see problems in the article you should ''tag'' them, so they can <u>be</u> examined and discussed. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 22:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
::::(A) If it was "seriously hacked, why don't you restore it? As I see, the text you cited has refs.
::::(B) Even this text does not explain what the heck is "decision-theoretic grounds". Without specifics it is just a useless gobbledygook pseudoscientists love to pepper their text with. ] (]) 17:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Every edit has been justified.
::::::A) Because i) I don't believe that "having refs" is sufficient for including material, ii) I didn't want to get into the heavy discussion that would be attendant on a bold Revert, and iii) there is all this other discussion that needs attending to. But perhaps you favor restoring the original?
# - neither 2.8 nor 2.6 have been published, as written and by J. Johnson
# - there is no such number in the specific page of the book
# - the 2013 Tectonophysics paper and the 2020 Applied Sciences paper consitute literature update
# - 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
#


J. Johnson acts under ] 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 . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . 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".--] (]) 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::B) We can't fully explain every hard or unfamiliar word for those that can't be troubled to look them up. Which is why we have wikilinks: they take you to the explanations. (Perhaps you failed to notice that "decision-theoretic" is wikilinked?) And you should note that your insinuation that the author cited is a "pseudoscientist" skirts ]. ~ ] (]) 05:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


: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. ] (]) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
::::: In Greece traditional seismologists have made the prediction of the "non-earthquake" using similar argumentation, based on impossibility. After public warnings for an anticipated earthquake, they have reassured people publicly that no large event was going to occur (). L'Aquila showed this can be considered a criminal action.-AA-] (]) 22:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


:It's not ]ership 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 ("{{tq|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, ] show that you are a ] (editing only this article and ]), whose edits either promote VAN, or remove content critical of VAN, distinctly demonstrating non-neutral violation of ].
] and ], critical systems show anti-persistency (an earth system is doing its best to relax the stresses and avoid the earthquake) and persistency (earthquake is unavoidable). Both have been shown to take place before an earthquake, and explaining models are available. Whereas they are not prediction methods, such publications rebut impossibility.-AA-] (]) 03:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
:Whatever you say, pleas keep in mind, you don't have to convince me or Elriana. Misplaced Pages talk page is not an idle discussion board. We are working on article improvement. Now, how your uttering translates into the article text (with references, of course). ] (]) 17:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


:Regarding your specific points:
:: We will have to wait for Elriana to add the content. She has revealed the main pillar of claiming impossibility for earthquake prediction.-AA-] (]) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


::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.
:Once again the anonymous Athenian SPA sends the discussion right off the rails. The ''issue'' Elrianna raised is that this section "{{tq|{{hl|does not make clear}} to an uninitiated reader {{hl|*why*}} predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible.}}" To which she added two ''samples'' of possible explanations. '''Note''': the issue is NOT whether earthquake prediction is possible or impossible; it is '''why''' many (perhaps most) earth scientists '''think''' it is impossible. Arguing that those scientists are wrong ''does nothing to clarify'' why they think otherwise. Opining about L'Aquila is entirely irrelevant, and is just distraction. ~ ] (]) 05:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


::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.
:: I will be happy to see Elriana add the content with the explanations of positive and negative points of view, and remove weaselings.-AA-] (]) 07:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


::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 ], whose peer-review has been questioned.)
:::Further demonstrating your misapprehension of the issue, and your single-purpose pov of interpreting everything as "positive or negative" re prediction and VAN. You are not making any useful contributions here, and it has been long evident that you are ] for building the encyclopedia. ~ ] (]) 20:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


::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.
:::: might help the section, as well as ''"An earthquake takes place so deep inside the earth that instrumentation cannot reach the fault areas. So we rely on physics that provides ways to reach these depths."'' that has been said before. I will wait for Elriana, for more.-AA-] (]) 21:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


::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.
:::::No. The diff you point to espouses Uyeda's pov that prediction has failed because it has been left to seismologists. It does ''not'' clarify '''why''' some scientists (not just seismologists) think prediction is impossible.


:::::Your text is inane. ''Of course'' "{{tq|we rely on physics}}". That is how seismologists and geo''physicists'' have explored the earth's interior. Apparently you are not familiar with that field. ~ ] (]) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC) :Your quote from the 2013 encyclopedia article, that "{{tq|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. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 01:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


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 ). 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.--] (]) 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::: Impossibility should be shown scientifically, not brought here as a scientist's quote. Let's begin with some physics .-AA-] (]) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


: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 . Otherwise I stand by my earlier comments. ] (]) 13:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::'''You <i>still</i> don't get it.''' We are <big>NOT</big> trying to "show" impossibility. The question is '''why''' some scientists ''believe'' in the impossibility of prediction. This is about the ''basis'' of belief, not the validity of such a belief. If you can't grasp that, and can't stay on topic, perhaps you should find some less demanding task. Preferably elsewhere. ~ ] (]) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


::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. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: The title of the section should change to '''Possibility''', from impossibility. Impossibility is a minority view, from scientists without background on the field, unable to publish responding to papers like the highly cited above. Quotes making wrong impressions should be removed.-AA-] (]) 05:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


: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.
:::::::::No, that change should ''not'' be made. That section treats the issue that arose after it became evident that (despite massive OPTIMISM) skillful prediction of earthquakes was a bust, and the question was whether prediction had failed because it is exceedingly ''difficult'', or because it is intrinsically ''impossible''. Many – by now, probably ''most'' – scientists believe the latter. Your disparagement of them as "{{tq|without background the field}}" is simply ''your'' opinion (and what do we know about ''your'' background?) and utterly untrue; it constitutes a personal attack. Your argument demonstrates nothing but the poverty of your argument, and your continuing partisan advocacy. ~ ] (]) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


: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.
:::::::::: A section on pessimism should have the tilte '''Pessimism''', ''not impossibility''. Then the explanation of pessimism that is being persistantly thrown away <sub>(that tradtional seismologists do not accept non seismic precursors as physical quantities)</sub> will at last be part of the article. Of course '''impossibility is a tiny minority view''', I see no source citing its growth (quite the opposite, wondering only on Misplaced Pages being misused to shape opinion for some years now). The title of the section should not lure the reader to minority conclusions. The POV quotes from one point of view only, expressing the extreme minority pov, should either be balanced or removed.-AA-] (]) 02:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
:
:::::::::::"Pessimism" and "non-seismic precursors" are the ]s of the extremely tiny minority view (i.e., ''fringe view'') of Uyeda (endorsed by Varotsos), the latter term referring explicitly to "electromagnetic &amp; geochemical phenomena". (We discussed Uyeda's views last August, ].) That Uyeda's views are readily shown to be false is rather irrelevant here, as your purpose seems to be only to churn controversy. That is disruptive, so I am going to ask you, nicely: please desist from your single-purpose advocacy of a resoundingly debunked point of view.


:::::::::::Attempting to engage in useful discussion with you has proven futile. Given ], that "{{tq|The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it}}", it seems pointless to continue. I will remind you that being ignored is not implicit approval to proceed with any changes to the article. ~ ] (]) 22:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC) :Attributing "Criticism of VAN" as arising solely from "{{tq|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 ] editor (with a possible COI) who is ] for the encyclopedia. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


@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).
::::::::::::Pessimism term is used for mainstream view in the lead section. Impossibility is a 1996-1997 myth, unsupported nowadays. There is no rebuttal, even answer, to recent publications like the one above on critical phenomena. Personal attacks is not argumenting. Recent publications on the topic are welcome.-AA-] (]) 09:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
:That's not how ] 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. ] (]) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


@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/).--] (]) 07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::Impossibility is not a "myth", and it is not confined to "1996-1997". Most of the chaos theory and decision theoretical arguments that I have heard and read for the intrinsic impossibility of accurately predicting earthquakes were developed while I was in college and graduate school (2001-2011). The reason I have not written some great explanation with loads of references is that I have not been working in that field since ~2008, and I have not kept track of the references or the scientists writing them since that time. The idea that the systems involved in earthquakes are intrinsically too complex to predict with any model simpler than the systems themselves is a widespread concept. Even seismologists and geophysicists who do not agree with that argument are aware that it exists. Many who work on the earthquake 'forecasts' for organizations like the USGS do believe there is a fundamental limit on how good those forecasts can get. It is not about pessimism. It is about understanding the complexity of the system, and acknowledging that some physical processes have statistical distributions rather than being fully deterministic. We deal with this issue in other fields, from weather forecasts to nuclear physics. The inclusion of the idea of prediction impossibility should not be controversial here. ] (]) 01:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:JJ is right in pointing out that you have only edited on VAN topics here on Misplaced Pages, 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. ] (]) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


:These "{{tq|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.
::::::::::::: Impossibility is rebutted ], the way you support it, exactly because critical phenomena have been shown to behave quite the opposite from what you describe, during the last stages of earthquake preparation, and detailed models have been proposed on this, up to the micro-scale, based on both experimental and field data. Please try to write about complexity and models in our article section, by all means ask an expert, and I will be here to help giving the advance of last decade on the field.-AA-] (]) 06:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::: No. The only way to "rebut" impossibility is to successfully predict earthquakes. We have not reliably done that. The USGS agrees, btw: https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9830/3278 . And whether or not prediction is impossible is not the point of this discussion anyway. Whether I, personally, agree or not is irrelevant. The idea that prediction may be impossible is taught in introductory seismology classes and mentioned in textbooks. It is a widespread idea that has influenced the distribution of funding and increased the focus on forecasts rather than prediction in the last couple of decades. Therefore the idea needs to be mentioned in this article and, as per wikipedia standards, the concepts should be explained as clearly and succinctly as possible. ] (]) 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Agree. ~ ] (]) 00:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I'm going to agree also, that the purpose of this particular section is to describe and explain the belief that EQ prediction is impossible. Other sections of the article discuss various theories about means of predicting earthquakes. Thus, the article as a whole does cover all viewpoints. ] (]) 04:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


:Your view that the VAN critics are "{{tq|mainly Geller et al.}}" and "{{tq|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.
==Recent findings suggesting possibility of EQ prediction==


:And as you have already been advised: ''alleged'' issues with the content are best addressed by tagging them, not with large unilateral edits. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do it, by all means. Misplaced Pages is interested in what traditional seismologiosts believe and teach. Misplaced Pages is also interested in latest decade's findings on the opposite.-AA-] (]) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


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. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 01:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
:You're a bit arrogant presuming to tell us what "Misplaced Pages is interested in". And while the ''topics covered'' by an encyclopedia (such as WP) may be guided by reader interest, we do not "balance" mainstream scientific opinion to suit fringe points of view. More particularly, we are ''not'' interested in "{{tq|the latest decade's findings on the opposite}}", because ''there are no such "findings"'' that rise to any degree of scientific credibility. Your constant nattering on this point is disruptive to the development of this article. ~ ] (]) 00:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
::The RfC above proposed introducing some specific information into this article, regarding research of the last decade or two. I'm optimistic that eventually the RfC will rise to the top of the queue at AN/RfC, and we'll be able to proceed with that. Meanwhile, AA, might I suggest that we bring the article on seismo-electromagnetics up to date while we're waiting? I'm intrigued with the article references you've been posting recently, but I am still finding it difficult to find the time to do as much reading as I'd like in this area. If you post the basic facts, I'll clean up the English grammar and try to address neutrality issues, and then maybe JJ and Elriana can do quality control. I hope this will be considered cooperation, rather than tag teaming? As a final step, I envision that appropriate summaries might appear in this article, subject to due weight considerations & consensus process. ] (]) 04:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


EyeCont: with your tagging yesterday of the two VAN related sections with {{tl|verifiability}} (with no further explanation than a link to a comment of yours here a month ago), and also your edits yesterday to ] ({{diff2|943707891|here}} and {{diff2|943706838|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 ].)
:::Jerry, the "specific information" you want to introduce via the RfC is, in the '''first''' place, '''not''' very specific. You asked whether several resarchers, two theories, a claim of a prediction, and a company should be "{{tq|discussed}}", but (aside from the claimed prediction) not much in the way of "specific information". '''Second''', all of that is fringe, being largely ignored (where not outright rejectd) by mainstream scientific opinoin. (And you may be jumping the gun in one case, as it appears nothing has been published yet.) ''Any mention'' in this article (where more pertinent sub-topics are not mentioned) amounts to promotion of fringe. If you feel they really warrant mention, do so in the more narrowly focussed seismo-electromagnetics article.


Also, as a ] 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.
:::As to AA's "{{tq|latest decade's findings on the opposite}}" – or, as you put it in this section's header: "Recent findings suggesting possibility of EQ prediction" – that is essentially an empty topic. Sure, back on 11 Feb. (bottom of the previous section) AA cited three "{{tq|very positive experimental results on the detection of precursory seismic electric signals}}". As I noted then, those papers were very ''speculative'', with tentative and uncorroborated findings, and one ''assuming'' "SEMS" exist. Even AA allowed that: "{{tq|We all agree there is no earthquake prediction according to the strict criteria.}}" There simply are no findings, recent or otherwise, that EP is possible along any lines that have been proposed; this heading asserts a statement that is false. ~ ] (]) 20:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
::::I gave links to the specific information and references located in the sub-articles, such as seismo-electromagnetics. The closer's job is to sort out what policy-based consensus can be drawn from all the reams of commentary about that RfC. So let's chill out and wait for someone to take on that job from an uninvolved perspective.
::::My section heading mentions "possibilities" which might very well be tentative. They discuss probabilities, not certainties, which means they might properly be included in a discussion of short-term forecasts. The literature of the "optimists" defines "prediction" rather differently than the mainstream. All this can be made clear in our article, in very few words. ] (]) 02:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


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.
:::::Taking a guess at what "possibilities" you might have mind (perhaps the sources AA cited in a previous thread?): it's not they ''might be'' tentative, but that they very well ARE tentative. That is why they are not yet accepted by mainstream science. They ''claim'' they ''might have'' seen a precursor, but that is hardly new. Plenty of people have reported ''possible'' precursors, and they have been doing so for decades, but none have worked out as useful ''predictors''. ~ ] (]) 00:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


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. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 00:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
== More notable predictions? ==


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.--] (]) 12:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Above in the RfC, JJ and tronvillain discussed a list of additional EQ predictions that might be included in the article. Last November when I was considering whether to retire from editing this article, I reviewed the old talk pages, and I felt that the materials were deleted without anything like an adequate discussion. I would support bringing much if not all of this back. I considered copying it back in myself as a gesture of goodwill, but I felt that to do a good job I would need to review at least some of the references and consider neutrality issues. It was more work than I felt able to take on at the time. But, basically, I do think much if not all of this should be in the article.


A community consensus has been achieved back in 2017, indeed. The discussion can start from this point and beyond.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The material was removed I think sometime in 2014, here is a link to a pre-removal version.


<hr>
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Earthquake_prediction&oldid=588172086
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. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 22:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


== Earthquake memory in time and space ==
] (]) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


While it is useful to know I am not sure it assists the article.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 20:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
:I am in favor of bringing much of that back, but I think there should be discussion on it. And better if we hold off on that until the RfC is settled. ~ ] (]) 22:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
::Brought back section on '1981: Lima, Peru (Brady)'. This prediction was very prominently treated in Hough. ] (]) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


: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. &diams;&nbsp;] (]) 21:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Good! And thank you. Hough treated it prominently because it was extremely notable, and not just in Lima: in going from scientifically credible to utter fiasco it pushed the USGS into taking a deep look into how predictions should be handled.


== Corrections on VAN (tagged for verifiability) ==
:::The 1976 Blue Mountain Lake prediction should also come back, as it was also based on what seemed credible science, and was for a while deemed a valid prediction. But there were some later developements which need to be added, and I haven't quite yet got around to it. The two Southern California quakes should also come back, both being widely heralded ''prospective'' (instead of retrospective) predictions, or at least strong anticipations, of a quake. ~ ] (]) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


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:
== RfC close requested ==
# "of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to seven hours beforehand" ( from the Section "VAN seismic electric signals" )
I requested an uninvolved and experienced editor to close the RfC, now that it's been expired from the active list by the bot. See:
# "but also a false alarm rate of 89%" ( from the Section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )
]
I tagged the above two excerpts (as recommended by ] 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.--] (]) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


== Literature update ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" or "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" ) ==
] (]) 06:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


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
:I just noticed the little edit war that occurred over the weekend between JJ and AA, regarding JJ's proposed "no consensus" close. Obviously, I completely disagree that there was no consensus on questions #1 through #4. I will post to AN/RfC, noting that this edit war occurred, and pleading for someone to come and perform a proper uninvolved closing. ] (]) 17:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
of the section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":
::Oh, so you've both already been there too. No worries, we're nearing the top of the wait list. ] (]) 17:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


{{tq|In 2013, the SES activities were found to be coincident with the minima of the fluctuations of the order parameter of seismicity, which have been shown to be statistically significant precursors by employing the event coincidence analysis.}}
== RfC implementation ==


The above cited papers are the following:
Many thanks to {{ping|Thryduulf}} for closing our RfC.
* 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.--] (]) 08:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To begin the implementation, I've restored the longstanding content about VAN's natural time hypothesis and their 2008 alleged prediction to its state before JJ deleted it last December. And, I've brought the text on the L'Aquila EQ prosecutions out of the footnote and into the body of the article.


== Literature update II ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" ) ==
I'm not quite sure what to say about Freund Physics, or the TEC material. I think it would be best to bring the ] article up to date first. That article is really in sad shape, beginning with the non-existant Harvard style sources section. Once we have a consensus on the unbiased story for that article, we'll be better positioned to create a summary for this article.


The following addition is suggested to be added to the fourth paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals":
Since my vacation from Wiki editing in December, I've realized that I certainly do have other priorities in my life. I'm just a layperson in this area, not an expert. Left to my own devices, I will get to this eventually. But it won't be quick.


{{tq|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.}}
AA, I have the impression that you follow this field very closely. Could you please help broaden Wiki's coverage of seismo-electromagnetics to give better coverage of the field outside of VAN? I am sick and tired of having JJ complain that you're an SPA, but you don't do much to counteract that <s>impression</s> conclusion. It doesn't have to be this way. If you're shy to make contributions in the article text (and I can understand why you might be) then make proposals on the talk page there, and we can discuss.


* 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
{{ping|Elriana}}, <s>I have the impression that</s> beyond any doubt, you also know a lot more about this topic than I do. Please don't be shy! ] (]) 23:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
* 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.--] (]) 09:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:The "impression" of AA (a.k.a. "IP202") being a ] is the cold, hard reality: there is no indication that he has edited any articles other than this (and the related ]), and even here has no interest other than in VAN and issues related to VAN (e.g., EP possibility). Any other impression would be false.


== Work update ( section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" ) ==
:And you are his chief enabler. ~ ] (]) 23:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
::] says {{tq|When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus. When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible.}} I think you have valid concerns about AA's behavior, but the correct place to address them would be in some conduct dispute forum, not here. Meanwhile, I always hope for the best.
::If AA or (preferably) Elriana don't step up to the plate to suggest some text about Freund physics and TEC, I promise I'll do it. I'd like to give them the opportunity, as I think either of them would do a better job than I would. ] (]) 18:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


The following source's content is suggested to be added to the third paragraph of the section: "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":
:::Not quite. I have concerns about the ''content'' that results when ''you'' enable a blatantly non-neutral anonymous (and likely conflicted) editor in promoting views contrary to the scientific mainstream. I am particularly concerned about your general disparagement of expert opinion in favor of popular, sensationalistic, and even fringe points of view. But: 1) is that a ''behavior'' amenable to change? And: 2) haven't we just established that "wikipinion" trumps expert opinion? ~ ] (]) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
::::JJ, there's an essay, ], that addresses some of your questions and concerns. It clearly states: {{tq|If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Misplaced Pages consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done.}} ] (]) 05:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


{{tq|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 . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data".}}
:::::You are implying that there was some question of the neutrality or reliabilty of our expert editor, Dr. Vidale, which is totally false. What you quote is from §6 of "Advice for expert editors", concerning potential conflict of interest, particularly in regarding to citing one's own research. Such COI is important to know about because it tends affect one's neutrality. This would apply to "AA" (not knowing who he is, we cannot tell if he is citing his own work), but it hardly matters because his non-neutrality is plain to see. ~ ] (]) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::I did not mean to imply anything whatsoever about Dr. Vidale's neutrality or potential COI. This is not an appropriate forum for such discussions. There was an editorial disagreement over content of the article, based on NPOV and due weight considerations. In such situations, the consensus of editors in an RfC should prevail. ] (]) 03:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::I checked, and found that ] is an essay, but ] is policy. ] (]) 03:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


::::::: Since Vidale 1996 is used to document impossibility minority view, there should be some concerns about the expert's opinion here, regarding neutrality or mainstream view.-AA-] (]) 08:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC) The above contains the exact excerpt from the encyclopedia. I feel should be reproduced in the article, as it answers an open question.--] (]) 10:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


== Missing rebuttal ( section "2008: Greece (VAN)" ) ==
::::::::Your comment is entirely false. Specifically, Dr. Vidale is '''not''' "{{tq|used to document impossibility}}". That earthquake prediction is considered (and by geophysicists as well as seismologists) '''either''' "fiendishly difficult" '''or''' effectively impossible arises from four decades of negative results. In the original version (which I am thinking ought to be restored) this was explained, based on ~15 sources.


In the section "2008: Greece (VAN)" the following phrase should be added:
::::::::Dr. Vidale is cited only once, along with four other citations, about an aspect of self-organized criticality, and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to cite him. There is no COI, and should be ''no'' concerns about his opinions; your comment is nothing but disruptive.


{{tq|A rebuttal to this complaint, which insisted on the accuracy of this prediction, was published on the same issue. }}
::::::::You, though, are a different matter, and there should be strong concern regarding your ''demonstrated'' non-neutrality. So tell us: who are you? ~ ] (]) 00:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


*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.
:::::::It is a curious thing that you reject Dr. Vidales' expert opinion, yet solicit input from an anonymous SPA whose expertise, background, and likely ''conflict of interest'' are unknown to us. And when I point out that your quoted authority applies to ''editing'' by experts with possible COI, your response is that .. WP:EXPERT is just "an essay"? If you no longer find it authoritative perhaps you should strike your previous comment where you rely on it.


If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--] (]) 10:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I could take you to task re CONSENSUS – particularly, that it is (ha ha) ''not'' "the result of a vote", and should respect WP's policies and guidelines — but never mind, I concede you "won" a vote that pretty much declares "damn mainstream opinion", and you're free to add any junk you find "interesting". Have a blast. ~ ] (]) 22:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::JJ, I am not saying that WP:EXPERT is not useful or authoritative. However, if I can also cite a policy in favor of my views, so much the better. Your claim was that paragraph 6 referred only to expert editors with COI issues, and my response was that consensus should apply even when there is no question of expert COI.


== Comments on EyeCont's proposals ==
::::::::The WP:EXPERT essay recommends that lay editors should work with experts to identify current sources, and to achieve neutrality. I believe that you, Dr. Vidale and AA have all manifested expertise in our topic area, and I respect you all as experts.
::::::::I disagree that the RfC declared against mainstream opinion. On the contrary, the RfC recommended that these fringe views are required to be discussed in context of mainstream opinion. There was no license to include "any junk you find interesting", but there was a finding that the listed items are sufficiently noteworthy to merit inclusion in the article. ] (]) 00:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


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. ] (]) 08:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I should hope you think so, but you do have a tendency to slide. And you do have a decided inclination ''away'' from expert, mainstream scientific opinion and towards what is "interesting", as pushed by by someone who won't disclose his apparent COI. ~ ] (]) 00:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::For whatever my opinion, and everyone I respect, is worth, we are quite sure there is no working method now to predict earthquakes. It remains possible that one will be found, but more likely there never will be a reliable way to predict earthquakes on time scales of minutes to months. Further, whatever credence Misplaced Pages gives to EM methods of prediction will inevitably diminish its reputation among scientists, several of whom have asked me to straighten out the earthquake prediction section here, although I don't have the time to do much. To be perhaps more provocative, I could supply the names of a dozen people who each think THEY can predict earthquakes, but no one else can. How can one listen to anonymous sources in trying to deduce correct science? For earthquakes, the noise and confusion of anonymous posters is deafening. ] (]) 04:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


: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.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: Misplaced Pages is no place for scientists to argue about correct science. The place to do it is peer-reviewed journals. In some cases we miss such publications for over a decade and more.-AA-] (]) 15:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::: LOL. Only anonymous posters with vested interests can discuss content on Misplaced Pages. Not people whose reputations can be inspected. That is why it often becomes a joke. ] (]) 15:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::Though proponents of certain resoundingly debunked claims think WP is the place to burnish their claims and reputations. The standards are certainly no where near as rigorous as for peer-reviewed publication.


::I agree, let's discuss improvements to the the ] 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. ] (]) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::'''Anonymous Athenian''': what are you hiding? Who are you to be arguing about "correct science"? ~ ] (]) 19:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


I just came across by Daniel Helman (2020), which contains an analysis and critique of the VAN method. To quote from the conclusions:
{{od}}Hello {{ping|Vidale}}, and welcome back to the talk page.
:"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". ] (]) 09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy is that topics such as alleged EM prediction methods should be covered in our encyclopedia, since they are also widely discussed in the popular press and in scientific journals. However, our coverage should be accurate, and the mainstream evaluation should be clear. All statements in the articles should be verifiable, and sourced to reliable published sources.
The opportunity to take the first cut at what our article should say about Freund physics, is wide open. I keep hoping someone with more actual expertise in this field than I, will take up the challenge. ] (]) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
: Do what you think best, but I'd recommend mentioning Freund physics and VAN in the same level of credibility as the healing power of crystal, Lysenko and cold fusion. Just trying to give you the sense of nearly every practicing seismologist, but haven't the time to do more. ] (]) 18:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


The above VAN criticism by Helman mentioned by ] has been recently shown (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/5/583/htm) that does not stand.--] (]) 05:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::But Fleischmann and Pons were (!) respectable scientists, and published in a {{doi-inline|10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3|peer-reviewed journal}}, and there are hundreds of other publications, so ] ''has to be true''!!! ~ ] (]) 19:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
:::I have posted a first draft of the new section on Freund, as authorized by the RfC. Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia written by non-experts for non-experts. And gosh darn it, people like the site. ] (]) 22:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
:::: In a quick scan today, the Freund and the VAN sections looked appropriately deeply skeptical. ] (]) 23:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Dr. Vidale! I myself have also given up all hope of predicting the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake. Or at any rate, I have brought my EQ insurance up to date, and will be installing seismic retrofits at my house this summer. ] (]) 18:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


: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. ] (]) 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
== Omerbashich discovery ==


:: 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 ]   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This Bosnia crownprince discovery for Misplaced Pages:


== Politics ==
''Abstract : Tectonic earthquakes, of Mw(6 ± 5%)+, are found forming a strengthening-peaking-waning pattern distinguishable from respectively quiescent times so well that the pattern means discovery of a universal natural mechanism that necessitates expanding on classical physics. The pattern is seen only during Earth’s alignments to two other heavenly bodies in our solar system lasting for more than three days. This empirical proof of astrophysical origins of seismotectonics is immediately obvious and verifiable. The find is consequential due to sheer size of processes and energies involved in defining the pattern that now enables all-or-nothing negative forecasting by foretelling dates without strong quakes. Earth’s energy budget and tectonics are primarily astrophysical in origin, instead of geophysical as previously believed. Near co-planarity of a solar system’s planets, which is for our solar system arguably regarded as odd, is in fact a necessary condition for active geophysics as a life system. The discovery has a potential for fundamentally rewriting physics, macrophysics in particular.''


A section for politics regarding earthquake prediction is missing from the article.
He is in fights with other scientist: '''''Paper accepted for publishing on 31 Aug 2016 by Earthquake Science journal (http://link.springer.com/journal/11589), Editor-in-Chief: Chen Yuntai, member of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Author rejected the offer as part of his protest against the way he and his discoveries were treated by the scientific community that resembled the treatment of Alfred Wegener and his historic discovery.'''''
# It should be stated that it is the state's responsibility to warn, not the scientists.
# There is a court decision on the case of Laquila EQ against scientists who publicly stated (predicted?) that the earthquake would not occur.
# The possible actions for taking measures are not discussed and only evaquation is mentioned, which is impossible in large cities and megacities.
# Funding of precursor phenomena vs seismicity is also missing.
   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


== Machine Learning ==
It is historic, yes? He can . Must read! ] (]) 14:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


Is acceptable? I think we should summarize this section.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 20:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
:What, this nonsense ''again''? Omerbashich and his hyperresonace theory has ''absolutely no standing in the scientific mainstream''. (Nor his various other odd claims and . See for more details.) His "theory", and the claim of successful prediction, has been intruded here (typically by an anonymous IP from Sarajevo) on multiple occasions:
:* ] (closed as "Stale discussion of ] views ...").
:* ].
:* ] (closed with "plain to see (even for a layperson like me) that the Omerbashich material shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages.").
:* ] ("Discredited nonsense from the fringe").


I removed the paragraph cited with the above, More, should be replaced by the one .   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
:This not just established fringe nonsense, it is ''perennial'' fringe nonsense. I'll hold of on hatting this in case anyone has any questions.~ ] (]) 21:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


== Difficulty vs Impossibility Rehash ==
Established? What nonsense you are talking about. Yes I am from Sarajevo is that crime? I don't know why you say such lies. Discovery is amazing for . Your link are nonsense which you put here for impressing people. Hitler would be proud of fascist like you. Go away Nazi. ] (]) 01:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


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,<ref>{{Harvnb|Martucci|Sparvoli|Bartocci|Battiston|2021}}</ref> it has been reported that, as shown in a more recent perspective,<ref>{{Harvnb|Varotsos|Sarlis|Skordas|2020}}</ref> 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 ]."
:'''Fake news -> Fake media -> Fake science -> Fake encyclopedia.''' ] (]) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
::IP217 and IP77, these are gratuitous personal attacks and are violations of Misplaced Pages civility policy. Please be polite.
::JJ, I completely back you up on this. Not entirely because of a lack of mainstream scientific standing, but also because of a general lack of noteworthiness. There's little if any secondary source material discussing Omerbashich, either pro or con. ] (]) 15:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


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
::I second JerryRussell's remarks. We have discussed this before. We have found no independent secondary source material to work with (and at least three of us have looked for it). And the proponents (who do tend to have IP's from the same small geographic area) have a tendency to resort to personal attacks instead of taking part in the discussion. I see no reason to discuss Omerbashich's claims when we have no usable sources (by Misplaced Pages's standards) to work with and no proponents (so far) who are civil enough to refrain from calling us all liars and/or Nazis. ] (]) 17:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
* 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.
] (]) 22:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


* The Martucci 2021 reference is a secondary source to Natural Time Analysis.
:::Because of these repeated promotions of flagrant nonsense, I have been wondering if we should have an RfC to the purpose of definitely settling that "hyper-resonance" is pseudoscience, that does not belong on WP, and (hopefully) end of discussion. ~ ] (]) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
* 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.
* ] is a distinct Misplaced Pages 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.   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 17:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)



::::What a vivid display of how a Nazi mind malfunctions. Hitler too had . What a Nazi "encyclopedia". ] (]) 10:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear ], it's been a few days since my reply. I would appreciate if you can find some time to study the above. Regards,   <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Redirection ==

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

] (]) 23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:11, 7 February 2024

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEarthquakes High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11

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

"Difficulty or impossibility" proposal

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)

I endorse this proposal, and have brought back the section from Aug. 2014 (more or less). JerryRussell (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
Thank you also, JJ, for restoring the sources. The article is looking better all the time. JerryRussell (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
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)

Brain bender

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)

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)

@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 wasno 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 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)

External links modified

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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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)

Left out new method based on gravity waves

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)

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)

Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Every edit has been justified.

  1. predict earthquakes of magnitude larger than 2.8" was never published by VAN - specific citation (not Misplaced Pages 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 . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . 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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

@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)

@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)

JJ is right in pointing out that you have only edited on VAN topics here on Misplaced Pages, 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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Earthquake memory in time and space

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

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)

Corrections on VAN (tagged for verifiability)

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)

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

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 to be coincident with the minima of the fluctuations of the order parameter of seismicity, which have been shown to be statistically significant precursors by employing the event coincidence analysis.

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)

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

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, 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)

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

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 . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . 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)

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

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, 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)

Comments on EyeCont's proposals

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)

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 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Politics

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.
  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 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Machine Learning

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

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

Difficulty vs Impossibility Rehash

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, it has been reported that, as shown in a more recent perspective, 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)

  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 17:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


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 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Martucci et al. 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMartucciSparvoliBartocciBattiston2021 (help)
  2. Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVarotsosSarlisSkordas2020 (help)

Redirection

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)

Categories:
Talk:Earthquake prediction: Difference between revisions Add topic