More and more scientists and people have accepted our Dehydration Theory, and gotten a lot of data about earthquake and earthquake prediction. However, some scientists work hard, but get little success. They are obsessed by worthless precursors. To help them, I would like to suggest thinking about our two "Yes or No" questions at first, which are basic and helpful for them to touch the heart of large earthquakes. The two questions are:

1. Can they explain how this cloud [1] formed?

2. Can they predict earthquakes as well as ours?

The first question expresses that earthquake clouds exist objectively. They look different from weather clouds and meteorology can not explain how they form. Moreover, relying on that cloud [1], I predicted the 6.1 Afghanistan earthquake to the US Geological Survey with a time probability 13% on January 5, 1998 correctly [2]. This practice offers a reliable example to demonstrate that earthquakes can be predicted and earthquake clouds exist indeed.

There are many earthquake clouds and my successful predictions by the clouds in our homepage, but the earthquake cloud in Image 20010103 5:00 [3] is rare. Counting on it, I pinpointed its related epicenter and magnitude 4.3 ML to the Public on January 4, 2001. Afterward, the 4.3 San Fernando earthquake occurred at 34.29N 118.40W on January 14. It proves that the both epicenter and magnitude are correct perfectly. This example shows that earthquake vapor erupts from an impending epicenter solidly, and then it forms an earthquake cloud while meeting cold air and the cloud drifts following wind.

Geoeruption, a twin of earthquake clouds, is another reliable precursor, and seems better than the clouds now because it can often pinpoint an impending epicenter. The following are a few examples.

The geoeruption of Image 1999081412:00 [4] predicted the 5.0 Central California earthquake on August 18, 1999 exactly. The earthquake was the only one bigger than 5 in the region of 34~41N and 119~126W within 474 days from November 28, 1998 to March 15, 2000.

The geoeruptions in Image 20000130 3:00 [5] indicated a group of impending earthquakes at those black points in Taiwan exactly, too.

The geoeruption of Image 20000413 0:00 [6] forecast a couple of 6.4 earthquakes in Iceland on June 17 and 21, which have been the largest there since 1912.

Relying on the geoeruption of Image 20010226 18:30 [7], I predicted the 6.8 Seattle earthquake to the Public one day before the earthquake, and the quake has been the only one bigger than 6 in Washington State since 1990 at least.

There are many excellent examples of geoeruptions and their related predictions in our homepage. However, I only give one example. Prediction No. 45, reported to the USGS for a M5 or two M4 earthquakes in a small area of 37-37.8N, 36.8-37.2E in Eastern Turkey within17 days from March 25 to April 10, 2000, is excellent. A couple of M4 earthquakes exactly fell into the predicted area with a tiny probability 0.0007% (0.44% in time and 0.15% in area) on April 2. This success further demonstrates that Dehydration is the most important phase of earthquake phenomena.

Although I make mistakes sometimes, more than 68% of my predictions are right. Moreover, the reason for the mistakes is not because of the both precursors, but because of a lack of specific data. For example, Image 20010802 6:00 [8] reveals a line-shaped earthquake cloud, but it neither shows the trace of the cloud, nor tells if it is either a single cloud or a combination of two clouds. Just due to the latter, I made a mistake of my prediction No. 59. The predicted earthquake is not one M6, but two M4.5 earthquakes (9/20 13:34 23.57N, 70.28E, 4.5mb; 9/21 2:40 23.47, 70.08, 4.7). However, the both predicted time and area are correct and the prediction has a low time probability of 2%. It is to say that to simulate such a mistake is not easy.

By contrast, the Nature Debate in1999 showed that no seismologist in the world had made a successful prediction yet. The cause for their unsuccessful work is that their work did not hit the trigger of earthquakes. For example, Chinese seismologists had detected the Tangshan earthquake with geodetic method in 1968, and predicted it in 1970. They were waiting and waiting for the earthquake, but no one happened. While they gave up, the 7.8 Tangshan earthquake killed 242,000, and seriously injured 164,000 people on July 28, 1976.

To help those scientists, I suggest comparing their practice with mine, which may inspire them in understanding the trigger of earthquakes or the key of short-term earthquake prediction. All in all, our two "Yes or No" questions simplify our "Dehydration" theory, which is the gate to enter the building of short-term earthquake prediction. Otherwise, even if costing a lot, those studies will get little success just like their ancestors.

Evidences and References

1. Image 19980101 07:32 The 6.1 Afghanistan Earthquake Cloud
2. The 6.1 Afghanistan Earthquake Prediction on January 5, 1998
3. Image 20010103 05:00 The 4.3 San Fernando, Southern California Earthquake Cloud, exactly
4. Image 19990814 12:00 The 5.0 Central California Geoeruption, Exactly
5. Image 20000130 03:00 A Group Of Geoeruptions In Taiwan, Exactly
6. Image 20000413 0:00 A Couple Of 6.4 Iceland Geoeruptions, The Largest Since 1912
7. Image 20010226 18:30 The 6.8 Seattle Geoeruption
8. Image 20010802 6:00 A Couple Of 4.5 India Earthquake Clouds

Home | Introduction | Publication & News | Predictions | New Predictions | Essays | Links | Contact