EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION

The 7.0 Hector Mine, Southern California Earthquake

Shows That I Am Right (Rewrite)

- June 2, 2002 (Origin A991016) -

In my essay "California Earthquake Situation Analysis" on August 10 ([1] Rewrite) or ([2] Origin) I wrote, "Recently, geophysicists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) issued a warning, 'L.A.'s Big Squeeze likely site of next major quake'. They predicted, 'The heart of the city will be struck' " [3]. I also wrote, "I respect the attempt of scientists of JPL, but do not think that next big earthquake will attack the city of Los Angeles. According to my analysis, the next big one will be in either the black triangle, or the California-Nevada border" [4].

The 7.0 Hector Mine Earthquake occurred at 34.60N 116.27W, near Landers in the black triangle on October 16, 1999, and announced my prediction correct. In that essay, I mentioned, "The earthquake may not come within 49 days" (Earlier than September 28), which is also correct. In this essay, I will discuss what made me unable to report a formal prediction to the USGS, what made those scientists of JPL fail, and what is new. Although it is difficult to persuade them to give up their hopeless work, but for a successful evacuation to save people, I will try.

Primarily, there were three problems that made me unable to write a formal prediction. First, modern satellite images did not show the trace of an earthquake cloud, so I was sure neither the cloud in the image 19990810 9:00 [5] was an earthquake cloud, nor where it came from before the earthquake. Second, I relied on the website of the Ohio State University for California, but it did not work from September 17 to October 14. Third, I could not obtain hourly temperature data in California. In short, I knew a big impending earthquake in either the black triangle, or the California-Nevada border, but did not have the data I needed.

Then, let me discuss what those scientists of JPL did. They started research in 1996, and used 250 GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers, and satellites for the Los Angeles earthquake prediction. This fact shows that they could do what they wanted to do, so the reasons for their failure were not due to objective conditions, but their subjective work.

There are two problems of their work. First, the geodetic method they relied on is not a short-term precursor, for example, the Chinese seismologists found the 7.8 Tangshan earthquake with the geodetic in 1967, but the earthquake happened in 1976. Moreover, the geodetic data of the Tangshan epicenter were confused because they were much lower than the surroundings [6, 7].

Second, the fact that the area window of the Los Angeles prediction was around the Northridge epicenter revealed their initial idea. They thought that after a big earthquake, the next would be nearby. However, earthquake databases tell us that their idea is correct only sometimes.

Now, three years elapsed. Those scientists are still trying to tame the geodetic precursor with more GPS receivers. On the other hand, people are still in earthquake danger, for example, the 6.5 Turkey earthquake on February 3, 2002 killed 44 and injured 318, the 7.4 Afghanistan earthquake on March 3, 2002 killed 150, etc. They may defend for no obligation to foreign victims, but have they taken a responsibility for the victims of the Northridge earthquake? They may say that predicting earthquakes "is still a remote dream" [3] to make themselves no responsibility for their inefficient work. However, to tell the truth, I denied their 4-year-work in one second just after hearing three key words "geodetic", "next large earthquake" and "Los Angeles" from their announcement on TV 7. Maybe reading the following comparison is helpful for them to realize the problem of their work.

AuthorTheoryPrecursorthe L.A. predictionWorking timeCostResult
The team of JPLPlatesgeodeticproposed4 yearsabout $20 million wrong
I Dehydrationearthquake vapordisprovedone secondsome right

To give them more help, I would like to show one of my successful predictions.

ItemTime Area Magnitude (ML)
My prediction 4/3~7/2/2001Hollister, Central, California [8] >=4
The earthquake7/2/2001 17:33 Hollister, Central, California [9] 4.1
I pinpointed the 4.1 Hollister, California earthquake to the USGS on April 4, 2001, and this prediction has a time probability 10.2%. Moreover, I predicted 63 predictions to the USGS, and more than 65% of them are correct. Therefore, predicting earthquakes is not "a remote dream", but is in practice already.

For about three years since the L.A. prediction, there has been no earthquake more than 4.3 in their predicted area, about 40km by 80km. Moreover, the 4.3 earthquake was in San Fernando on January 14, 2001. Its magnitude and epicenter had been pinpointed by me in our homepage on January 3, 2001 exactly [10]. If the magnitude of the L.A. prediction were >= 4.3 as mine, the following comparison depicts the time and the area windows.

PredictionsTimeDelay(days)Area (km2)Magnitude (ML)
The L.A. prediction8/3/1999529about 3,200 Reduced to >=4.3
My prediction1/4/200110314, San Fernando[11] >=4.3[10]
The earthquake1/14/2001 2:46 34.29N,118,40W, San Fernando 4.3

The above comparison reveals a precision difference between the L.A. prediction and my prediction. The former has a time window 53 times bigger than mine, and an area window 10 times, together a precision 530 times lower than mine under reducing its magnitude window to >=4.3.

All above facts demonstrate that the geodetic precursor does not work for short-term prediction. A possible question they may ask me is why it does not work. In fact, philosophy tells us that any event contains two phases: a slow quantitative change and a sudden qualitative change. Because the geodetic precursor works on the slow quantitative change, so it is not a short-term precursor. By contrast, the both earthquake clouds and geoeruptions work on the sudden qualitative change, called "Dehydration" [12], so they are good short-term precursors.

Actually, I analyzed many other precursors, such as seismological, hydrological, geochemical, electromagnetic, and so forth. They have the same problem like the geodetic precursor, which is why no scientist is successful with those precursors although they have been attempting for more than a centenary [13].

Another question they may ask is why my predictions are not 100% correct. Although this question is already explained in my article < Earthquake Clouds, a reliable precursor > [14], I would like to repeat the both reasons simply. One of them is lacking experience as a pioneer, and the other is lacking the data I need. There are many data problems on my work, but the most serious difficult is no satellite image for earthquake prediction. I use weather satellite data, but they do not show the trace of an earthquake cloud.Moreover, they are not precise enough to expose very close epicenters.

In my view, not fixing their work on one unsure project is good for them since it takes a smaller risk. They'd better try something new, for example try to reply < Our Two "Yes or No" Questions >[15], which will help them understand how a large earthquake happens and how to predict it.

In summary, the 7.0 Hector Mine earthquake shows the importance of a cooperation between the American scientists and me. On one hand, they can obtain any data they want, but they do not have a correct theory, so they are unsuccessful. On the other hand, I have a correct theory, but I can not obtain the data I need. Therefore, if they are willing to cooperate with me to solve the main data problems, their work is respectable because all large earthquakes will be able to be predicted exactly, and people will survive from earthquake disasters. However, if they are still addicted to the geodetic precursor, their work will fail again, and is disreputable because it wastes taxes, but people get nothing from it. All in all, I hope the American scientists would like to hear people's cry and to cooperate with me to solve those satellite data problems. If they do, they are honorable.



References

  1. California Earthquake Situation Analysis on April 14, 2002 (Rewrite)
  2. California Earthquake Situation Analysis on August 10, 1999 (Old Version)
  3. Martin Kasindorf. L.A.'s Big Squeeze likely site of next major quake. USA TODAY. 8/3 3A (1999).
  4. Image 19990726 9:00. The black triangle "ABC" & the California-Nevada border "de"
  5. Image 19990810 9:00. The 7.0 Hector Mine earthquake cloud
  6. Xie, J.M. & Huang, L.R. The vertical deformation before and after the Tangshan earthquake of 1976. Seismology and Geology 9, No. 3, 1-19 (1987).
  7. Zhang, C.D. & Xiang, J.C. Three essential signs of crustal deformation during the period of the strong earthquake preparation in the case of Tangshan. Seismology and Geology 5, No. 1, 71-77 (1983).
  8. Image 20010320 15:30. The predicted area "E" at Hollister, submitted to the USGS
  9. The 4.1 Hollister, California earthquake, reported by the USGS
  10. The 4.3 San Fernando earthquake prediction on January 3, 2001
  11. Image 20010103 5:00. The 4.3 San Fernando earthquake cloud
  12. Kirby, S.H & McCormick, J.W. Inelastic properties of rocks and minerals: strength and rheology. Practical Handbook of Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals, 179-185 (ed. Carmichael, R.S., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1990).
  13. The Nature Debates from February 25 to April 8, 1999
  14. Shou, Z. Earthquake Clouds, a reliable precursor, Science & Utopya 64, 53~57 (1999)
  15. Repeat Our Two "Yes or No" Questions
  16. The 7.0 Hector Mine, Southern California Earthquake Shows That I Am Right on October 16, 1999(Old Version)


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

Sign Our GuestbookGuestbookView Our Guestbook

Updated: June 2, 2002 | Webmaster