A Newsgroup Earthquake Warning Update – May 21, 2011

On May 18, 2011 I circulated a formal Earthquake Warning through a number of Internet Newsgroups including sci.geo.earthquakes.

One of the few responders came up with the usual:

“An earthquake forecast must have exact time window, location, and magnitude information.”

The following is much of the text of the response note that I just posted. And I feel that my comments were a lot more polite than his.

>Well, this is a pretty useless forecast and hardly qualifies as a
> warning. To be useful, predictions and warnings need to have
> a. A well-defined time span
> b. A well-defined location
> c. A specified magnitude range

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Several Recommendations For Publicly Circulated Earthquake Warnings
II. A Proposed International Earthquake Forecasting Data Clearinghouse

FIRST

To begin with, I do actually have very exact locations for both of the earthquakes I have been expecting. That information was not included in my original Internet Newsgroup earthquake warning. And those types of exact data are never included in my Internet Newsgroup and Bulletin Board warnings and advisories and most of my warnings circulated by E-mail for the following reasons:

I. SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLICLY CIRCULATED EARTHQUAKE WARNINGS

Publicly circulated earthquake warnings need the following three things:

1. Some type of reliable precursor data need to be collected.

2. Those data need to be accurately evaluated.

3. The publicly circulated earthquake forecast or warning data need to be circulated in a responsible manner.

That third requirement limits the amount of detail that I include with my own publicly circulated earthquake warnings. And the following recent events demonstrate the importance of being careful regarding that matter.

If you have been watching the earthquake forecasting news lately then you would have undoubtedly seen that there was a prediction circulating for an earthquake to occur in the Rome, Italy area on May 11, 2011.

Scientists and government officials insisted over and over again that there would not be any earthquake. But some people living in Rome reportedly still packed their bags and got out of town!

Guess what?

There was no major earthquake in the Rome area last May 11 as far as I have heard.

One of the amusing parts of that prediction was that it was reportedly made by someone who died back in 1979 if I remember correctly. So it might have been a little difficult to ask him for more forecast details.

My point is the following:

When a public forecast is circulated, it is important to take into account the accuracy probability of the time window, location, and magnitude information.

And perhaps even more important, it is important to circulate the forecast in such a manner that people do not get unnecessarily upset.

An experienced scientist would know that there are dramatic differences between 99%, 9.9%, and 0.099% probabilities. But with many people, all they need to hear are the words "earthquake prediction" and they get upset, pack their bags, and leave the town where the earthquake is supposed to occur.

Any earthquake forecasts that are made are likely to involve probabilities. And unless the ground is starting to shake under your feet, your forecast can never have a 100% certainty for the expected time window. So, without that certainty you need to circulate your forecast data in such a manner that they will not be misinterpreted.

My May 18, 2011 Internet Newsgroup earthquake warning was deliberately vague because of the fact that I knew that many of its readers would not be able to distinguish between a 99% accuracy forecast and one having a probability of 0.099%. And I did now want people to start thinking unnecessarily that they might need to evacuate some city.

My earthquake warning was intended primarily to let other forecasters around the world know that they should be checking their local precursor data for a possible approaching earthquake at that time. And the charts on my Data.html Web page are intended to provide them with some possible location starting points. My warning also stated that appropriate parties could contact me by E-mail for additional forecast details.

If some other earthquake forecasters had been able to evaluate their local precursor data in an effective manner after that warning was circulated then perhaps the ones monitoring earthquake precursor activity in the Turkey area might have spotted the approach of that 5.8 or so magnitude May 19, 2011 Turkey earthquake that reportedly claimed 3 lives and injured at least 100 other people.

It is my understanding that there are quite a few groups and individuals monitoring earthquake precursors in that area. And I have to wonder how they missed that one. An earthquake with a magnitude of 6.5 or lower in that part of the world would probably not be strong enough for me to detect clear precursor signals for myself. I live and work too far from there. But locally they should have been able to detect something, especially since on May 18, 2011 I recommended that forecasting personnel everywhere should immediately check their precursor data.

My more detailed earthquake locations etc. are being circulated by E-mail to appropriate parties around the world who do have the ability to distinguish between 99% and 0.099% probabilities.

SECOND

My earthquake warning was also intended to let disaster response personnel know that they might need to respond to a destructive earthquake in the near future.

Just that time window information by itself would be important to them because it can take them hours or even days to get their gear packed and ready for an earthquake response. They don't need any magnitude or location details though location information would certainly be helpful to them.

II. A PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING DATA CLEARINGHOUSE

It has long been my opinion that we need to have some type of formal international data clearinghouse that could collect and perhaps evaluate earthquake warning and precursor information submitted by forecasting groups and individuals around the world.

The organization might be run by some entity such as the United Nations with financial support from world governments. Clearinghouse personnel would then circulate the forecast information in a responsible manner that did not get people around the world unnecessarily upset.

The clearinghouse organization management would need to be staffed by professional disaster mitigation personnel rather than people who only had a science background. One of the reasons for that is that scientists who are not also professional disaster mitigation workers tend to get totally immersed in the technology and details associated with an earthquake forecast for example. And they become afraid to do anything unless they are working with data that have a 100% certainty.

100% certainty data are in my opinion difficult to find. However, I feel that data from a variety of earthquake forecasting technologies can be compared with one another. And through that process, reasonably high probability forecasts can at times be generated.

What about the expense of running such an earthquake forecasting data clearinghouse?

Consider that the 9 magnitude March 11, 2011 earthquake in the Japan area reportedly did more than 300 billion U.S. dollars worth of economic damage, resulted in the partial or total destruction of one of more nuclear power plants, and led to the release of radioactive materials into both the atmosphere and ocean. And, consider how much of that damage and economic upset etc. might have been avoided if the government of Japan had even the sketchiest of warnings that the earthquake was on the way.

The point is that no matter what that proposed clearinghouse cost to run, say 10 million dollars a year to be generous, that expense would be negligible in comparison with 300 billion dollars.

In numbers, 300 billion dollars is:

$300,000,000,000.00

Compare that with:

$10,000,000.00

Even if that proposed clearinghouse never accomplished a single thing and were a total waste of money, it would take a long, long time for that waste level to get to 300 billion dollars. And that 300 billion dollars loss is just from one earthquake!

These are expressions of personal opinion.