Hi Petra. For the most part I have to agree with you. However I still disagree with you that predicting earthquakes accurately will be sooner then we think. The biggest problem we have today is understanding what we know and applying it. There are five stages to an earthquake. During each stage, a variety of changes occur in the earth. These changes are the geophysical precursors, and they can help scientists predict earthquakes. In order to understand how these precursors arise and how they help predict earthquakes, the five stages of an earthquake must be understood. These five stages arise from the Elastic Rebound Theory. This section will describe each of the five stages of an earthquake. Stage I of an earthquake is the buildup of elastic strain. As the two sides of a fault move, elastic strain slowly builds up in the rocks, and the rock particles become compressed together.
Stage II is dilatancy and development of cracks. The rocks are now packed as tightly as possible, and the only way the rocks can change shape is to expand and occupy a larger volume. This increase in volume is called dilatancy. The volume increase is caused by the formation of microcracks. As microcracks form, the water that normally fills the pores and cracks in the rocks is forced out, much like when you step on wet beach sand. Air now fills the pores and cracks in the rocks. During this process, the rocks become stronger and can store more elastic strain. This process can be detected on the surface by uplift and tilting of the ground.
Stage III is the influx of water and unstable deformation in the fault zone. During this stage, water is forced back into the pores and cracks in the rocks by the surrounding water pressures much like when water fills the footprint in the sand. As the water returns, the dilatant rock loses its increased strength. The rocks are already strained beyond their normal capacity, and the rate at which the rocks fall in strength determines the instant of failure. The inflow of water also prevents further generation of microcracks; thus, the rocks stop expanding. In addition, the water in the rocks provides lubrication for the eventual release of the built-up strain.
Stage IV is fault rupture, or the earthquake. Eventually, the rocks can no longer resist the strain. The fault suddenly ruptures, producing an earthquake. When the fault ruptures, the elastic energy stored in the rocks is released as heat and seismic waves. It is these waves that constitute an earthquake.
Stage V is the sudden drop in stress followed by aftershocks. The principal earthquake releases most of the elastic strain energy; however, additional smaller ruptures occur producing aftershocks. The aftershocks release the remaining strain energy and eventually the strain in the region decreases and stable conditions return.

All of the above can be measured in one form, fashion, or another. The big problem is where do you place the instruments that have the ability to make those measurements?

Currently there are two recognized methods of predicting earthquakes. Statistical analysis is one method of predicting earthquakes. Statistical analysis is when you look at the history of earthquakes in a given region and see if there is a recurrent, or cyclical, pattern of the earthquakes. If earthquakes in a given region have a recurrent pattern, then a long-term prediction can be made based on the recurrent pattern. One such statistical analysis was Parkfield. Statistical analysis showed that a 6.0Md quake occurred there on the average every 22 years. The next Parkfield earthquake was expected to occur in 1988. With an allowance for statistical variation, the window of occurrence is 1986 to 1993. Thus, by doing a statistical analysis of previous earthquakes, scientists were able to make a long-term prediction that an earthquake would occur in Parkfield, California, between 1986 and 1993. We know that did not occur. Instead we had the Coalinga quake. The distance between Parkfield and Coalinga is 17 miles as the crow flies. The quake was a 6.5 and occurred on May 2 1983. It was on a blind thrust fault. Does this mean that statistical analysis method of predicting quake is not the way to go?

The second method is the geophysical precursor method. Geophysical precursors are changes in the physical state of the earth that are precursory to earthquakes. Monitoring of geophysical precursors enables scientists to make medium- and short-term predictions of an earthquake. The length of warning that can be expected depends upon the magnitude of the coming earthquake. For example, for an earthquake of magnitude 3, we can expect about a day's warning, but for an earthquake of magnitude 4, the time is about 10 days. For a magnitude 6 and 7 earthquake, the time is 1-2 years and 6-7 years, respectively. For a magnitude 8 earthquake, we would have 25-30 years in which to operate.
There are a variety of geophysical precursors; however, I will only point out five of them. The geophysical precursors are the velocity of the P- wave changes, ground uplift and tilt, radon emissions increase, electrical resistivity of rocks decrease, and underground water level fluctuations. There are currently only 4 area know to me being measured for some of the above, but not all. That is Southern, California, Parkfield, San Juan Bautista, and the Bay Area. There is a fifth site that is located at Long Valley Calldera, but they are being used for a different purpose. The biggest problem that I have seen with these data is there are too many false readings and in some cases not understanding the data. More likely not understanding the data.

This is why I say that predicting earthquakes accurately has a long ways to go. I didn’t cover the physic media here as that is another topic. Take Care…Don in creepy town.