The following are personal opinions.

Assuming your CGI program development effort is aimed at helping make it ultimately possible for governments etc. to successfully predict earthquakes and avoid fatalities and at least some property damage, then based on what I have seen so far regarding your plans I believe that for the following reason, your efforts will not be successful. You will have devoted some time and energy to it when that time might have been aimed in a more productive direction. However, it is of course your time. And you are free to do what you wish with it.

Your following statement largely explains things.

“A scientifically meaningful earthquake prediction must contain the following criteria:”

I myself am a scientist with several degrees and many years of experience with working with governments and nongovernmental groups around the world regarding disaster mitigation projects. And I don’t agree at all with that statement.

Although you might not believe this, many people and governments around the world regard my opinions regarding such matters as being worth note. They also often follow my recommendations when they are consistent with what they want to do anyway. When they are not, they still pay attention to the recommendations but simply don’t do what I proposed should be done.

For three observable examples:

1 I now have a highly visible, permanent presence on the Meteoquake Web site. No other forecasters around the world do as far as I can tell. And that is in spite of the fact that I have no ties with the Meteoquake organization.

2. My forecasting computer program is also available for downloads via the EarthWaves Web site, the host for this bulletin board.

3. It is my understanding that information regarding my forecasting computer program will be formally presented in some form at an international earthquake forecasting conference scheduled to be held in Japan towards the end of March.

PRODUCTIVE DIRECTIONS FOR EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING

To a very large degree, governments and disaster mitigation groups etc. around the world are interested in any type of information that can help them determine that an earthquake could be about to occur and cause injuries, fatalities, and economic loss for them. And since governments etc. are the ones generating most of the funding for earthquake forecasting research then if a person wishes to work with them and have his or her efforts supported he or she needs to get into proper alignment with what they want, not with what individual researchers or even what the majority of scientists might think or say they want.

Earthquake forecasters and researchers can use the process of “Successive Approximations” to generate helpful earthquake forecasting information. For example, one person might be able to generate an accurate time window for a significant earthquake. A second might then supply some latitude and longitude information. And a third might supply some magnitude or destructive potential information.

With each addition of information they can move closer to an accurate, complete forecast.

As an example of this, in October of 2007 I myself circulated an earthquake warning or advisory for a significant earthquake based on strong electromagnetic pulse signals (EM signals) detected during that month. But I did not make a major effort to determine where the expected earthquake might occur. A research colleague in California contacted me and stated that she was expecting some significant activity in the general San Francisco area. I then reran my data and directed my computer program to focus on matching the EM signals with significant California earthquakes. It showed that there was a good match with several destructive earthquakes that had occurred in the general San Francisco area. I then circulated a more focused warning or advisory for a significant earthquake in that area. And on October 31, 2007 one occurred right were we expected one could occur. It was reportedly the most powerful one to occur in that area in almost two decades. It produced some damage in grocery stores etc. but fortunately was not strong enough to cause major damage to bridges or buildings.

The other researcher and I compared notes and used the process of “Successive Approximations” to generate an accurate forecast.

In my opinion, what the science of earthquake forecasting presently needs is a CGI program that would enable researchers around the world to submit and display a variety of precursor and statistical data etc. for other researchers to examine and evaluate. Individual data points might provide helpful information for just one thing such as the expected magnitude. Researchers could then combine the various types of data to generate complete forecasts. Requiring that each person submit a complete forecast is probably largely unrealistic. And it eliminates perhaps more than 99 % of the available precursor and statistics data.

Filtering options in the CGI program could then be used to separate displayed data into “Complete Forecasts Only” or “Specific Latitude And Longitude” or “Specific Data Submitter” categories etc.

The following is an example of how precursor data maps might be displayed by the CGI program. I first stored this example on an Internet Web site back in October of 1996. It is interesting to note how its color schemes etc. are being used by some present USGS Internet map generation programs.

Netcom site program

Do you want to actually make a helpful contribution to international forecasting efforts?