Very interesting. Thanks John.

The more I read, the more I think science is a long way off from a reliable predictive model. The alleged ear tones don't seem to have any basis in a measurable and objective phenomenon and so seem to of no value in predicting earthquakes (at presnt Petra, at present). It also seems that objective measurements of other "precursory" elements are not yet sufficient to yeild a reliable model of their own. There appear to be so many variables and so many "precursors" that could easily be attached to other events or causes.

If I understand weather forecasting correctly, the "30% chance of rain" prediction simply means that based on historical data, when the conditions were as the are on a given day, it rained 30% of the time. I wonder if the very best anyone could ever do is to say there is an X % chance of an earthquake.

Does anyone feel that as more time goes by and more hard data is gathered about eqs that someday day one might expect to see such a forecast? (That would be strange to see on the nightly news, though, don't you think?)

I know there is debate here about the various portents of a quake (weather conditions, oil seeps, dogs barking, birds disappearing, ears ringing) but has anyone undertaken a gathering of all the measurable conditions that existed on the days in which sizable (widely felt) quakes occured?

Do you feel that an analysis of all that data would yield a hint of a predictive model akin to the forecasting of weather conditions? As I think of it, I wonder if would it do anybody any good? I forget my rain coat nearly every time I'm warned of an impending storm. I wonder if anyone would take any action without a specific alert.

Any thoughts?

Russell