|
disagree strongly |
The problem is optimism vs pessimism. Neither Berkland or Whiteside have found a signal documented in even a semi-quantitative way - KB's predictive power, which also has not been documented in an unambiguous way, could arise simply from the long-known fact that earthquakes cluster in space and time, which is also captured in the new (conservative) web page of earthquake danger from the USGS. So far, earthquake forecasting in terms of probability gains of just a factor of about ten have not been achieved, nor are they very useful for society. Vastly more powerful predictions are necessary to save a large fraction of the lives currently lost. The long-term funding for earthquake research IS largely driven by the quest for earthquake prediction. However, it may be hard to appreciate that uncovering the details of the earthquake cycle through mapping the stress and strain accumulation through seismicity catalogs, GPS recordings, and now InSAR monitoring is the thorough and most sensible way to attack what may be an intractable problem. "there are only two scientists who are known to me who are interested in predicting earthquakes for reasons other than solving a math problem"? To assert that scientists are not trying to save lives by predicting earthquakes is ridiculous, and I can speak from personal experience for the majority of the scientists involved. I just spent the last two days with the person who is probably going to chair the re-incarnation of NEPEC. If seismologists thought earthquake prediction was inevitable rather than impossible, most would be working on the problem flat out. I personally think the odds are against greatly improved predictive power without greatly enhanced nitty-gritty monitoring of strain and seismicity, and probably unlikely even with nearly complete monitoring. The level of detail of knowledge of the stress, strength, and structure in the Earth necessary to know when and where the next large rupture will strike may be overwhelming. But the value of success would be great enough that continued and more intense efforts are warranted. Follow Ups: ● Re: disagree strongly - Likewise - Response Later n/t - Petra 12:14:22 - 7/1/2005 (26770) (1) ● Continuing the Discussion - Petra 18:54:09 - 7/1/2005 (26772) (1) ● everyone's entitled to an opinion - John Vidale 22:36:35 - 7/1/2005 (26776) (1) ● Re: everyone's entitled to an opinion - Petra 01:18:51 - 7/2/2005 (26777) (1) ● you missed my point - John Vidale 07:23:25 - 7/2/2005 (26779) (1) ● Re: you missed my point - not really - Petra 09:48:32 - 7/2/2005 (26781) (2) ● makes sense - John Vidale 10:31:47 - 7/2/2005 (26783) (0) ● If I may intrude - Roger Hunter 10:08:04 - 7/2/2005 (26782) (2) ● Re: If I may intrude - Of Course - Petra 20:33:33 - 7/2/2005 (26791) (0) ● OT: Roger, check my "Ask Jim" post - John Vidale 11:56:17 - 7/2/2005 (26786) (1) ● Re: OT: Roger, check my "Ask Jim" post - Roger Hunter 12:17:12 - 7/2/2005 (26787) (1) ● then why didn't he deny it? - John Vidale 13:02:14 - 7/2/2005 (26788) (2) ● For the record, he denied it eventually - John Vidale 07:20:03 - 7/3/2005 (26794) (1) ● Re: For the record, he denied it eventually - Canie 20:31:44 - 7/5/2005 (26823) (1) ● intriguing stuff - John Vidale 09:25:49 - 7/7/2005 (26843) (0) ● Re: then why didn't he deny it? - Roger Hunter 13:29:14 - 7/2/2005 (26789) (1) ● Re: then why didn't he deny it? - Petra 14:35:44 - 7/2/2005 (26790) (1) ● I'd like to see Berklund's Loma Prieta prediction word- for word - chris in suburbia 14:27:55 - 7/6/2005 (26827) (1) ● So would I. - Roger Hunter 16:45:43 - 7/6/2005 (26831) (0) |
|