EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION

New Year Greeting

- January 1, 2003 -

New Year is coming. I thank you for interesting in and propagating our work, and hope everybody be health and wealth. I reviewed the past, and found a number of people, killed and injured by devastating earthquakes since 1999 [1]. It makes me think about why. If I think the main reason before October 1999 as no theory to predict earthquakes, then why have earthquake tragedies continued after I published my Dehydration Theory [2] in October 1999?

There are many causes. First, my work completely depends on data. For example, I predicted an M5 or two M4 earthquakes in the area of 37~37.8N, 36.8~37.2E from March 25 to April 10, 2000 to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) relying on a good geoeruption at "A" of Image 20000223 21:00 [3]. On April 2, an M4.2 earthquake at 37.57N, 37.19E and an M4.4 at 37.65, 37.23 happened at "A" exactly. Within the predicted area, the pair has been the only one of magnitude >= 4 since the beginning of the database on January 1, 1990. Within the predicted time, the couple was the only one of magnitude >= 4 in the area of 29~44N, 31~48E, a region 637 times larger than the predicted area.

By contrast, relying to an earthquake cloud, having a clear magnitude, but a confused epicenter, of Image 19990926 12:00 [4], I predicted an earthquake of magnitude >= 6.5 within the area of 30~40N and 51~58E and 20 days from October 25 to November 14, 1999. In the predicted time window on November 12, and magnitude window, an M7.2 earthquake happened out off the predicted area window, at 40.79N, 31.11E, Turkey. Although the prediction was wrong, but the M7.2 earthquake was the only one of magnitude >= 7 in the area of 0~90N and 0~118E within 476 days from August 18, 1999 to December 5, 2000. Comparing the time window 20 days with the period of 476 days, one will find that even if extending the area window to the area of 0~90N and 0~118E, a random guess with a time span of 20 days has a little probability of 4.2% (20/476) to simulate such a mistake. It is to say that without the cloud, one even could not simulate such a mistake.

The above two examples demonstrate that the better the data I got, the better a prediction I could make, and the mistake was not due to my theory, but a data problem that satellite images did not show the trace of the cloud.

One may ask me if I found evidence to prove that an earthquake cloud really comes from an impending epicenter. My response is affirmative. On January 4, 2001, I pinpointed an impending epicenter at San Fernando [5] in Image 20010103 5:00 and predicted its magnitude >= 4.3 to the Public. On January14, 2001, a couple of earthquakes of magnitude 4 and 4.3 occurred at the pinpointed dot San Fernando [6] exactly. The twins were the only earthquakes of magnitudes >=4 within the area about 40,000 km2 of 33.2~35.3N and 117.4~119.4W and 258 days from December 25, 2000 to September 8, 2001. This evidence proves that an earthquake cloud really comes from an impending epicenter.

Moreover, I foresaw that the trace of earthquake vapor would be found in a natural condition sometimes, and really found it as geoeruption later. I predicted an earthquake of magnitude >=4 at Mark "E"[7] from April 4 to July 2, 2001 to the USGS. Coincidentally, an earthquake of magnitude 4.1 happened at "E", Hollister[8] on July 2, 2001. This example reveals that the trace of earthquake vapor exists from an impending epicenter, so it is possible to expose the trace with modern technology.

There are abounding excellent examples in this homepage, such as the 6.1 Afghanistan earthquake cloud [9] and its prediction [10], the 6.7 Mexico earthquake cloud [11] and its prediction [12], the 6.8 Seattle geoeruption [13] and its prediction [14], and so on. On the other hand, satellite data problems [15] and earthquake data problems [16][17] interrupt me to touch a successful evacuation. However, the both problems do not belong to my work, but the Society. Therefore, I feel my duty almost being done after writing my findings down.

Some people suggest attempting to solve the Society problem for a successful evacuation. However, it is too hard for me to do because many scientists only look up to themselves in spite of no success. For example, the 7.0 Hector Mine earthquake announced my success, and the failure of the NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) [18]. However, the scientists of JPL may forget the following comparison:

AuthorTheoryPrecursorthe L.A. predictionWorking timeCostResult
The team of JPLPlatesgeodeticproposed1996~1999about $20 million wrong
I Dehydrationearthquake vapordisprovedone secondsome right
They are addicted to set up more GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers. I can predict their failure again, but I can not persuade them to solve the satellite data problems for a successful evacuation.

Moreover, some people think that there are many methods to predict earthquakes. It is true that there are many methods, but the Nature Debate in 1999 [19] revealed no one of them being successful. Therefore, what is new with those methods after 1999?

In addition, some earthquake predictors announced their big success: an accuracy of more than 80% or 90%. However, what are the probabilities of their predictions?

All in all, I discover a truth about how large earthquakes happen, and how to predict them, but both satellite data problems [15] and earthquake data problems [16][17] interrupt my work seriously. If the Society helps me to overcome the both problems, a successful evacuation will help the Society itself in the near future. Otherwise, this table will be longer and longer.



P.S.

A California gentleman mailed me a Christmas Card and a check. He is so kind that he required me not to show his name, and even did not leave his address and email address. Another very kind gentleman asked me some cost and he would like to help me, too. I thank the both sirs very much, and would like to give my best wishes to the both sirs and their families.

I will set up a special account to record all donations and their uses. I will cite them as evidence for future financial application from the USGS that requires to show individual supports. I hope that more and more people learn from the both sirs to donate my work, which will really help you and other people. When you donate, please give me your address and email address in case I mail you something, and mention if I can show your name.

The key to reach a successful evacuation is to solve the satellite data problems, which needs me to touch raw data from satellites. If someone can lend me the software and its related computer for the raw data, or cooperate with me to deal with the raw data, I would very appreciate.



References

  1. Table. Devastating Earthquakes since 1999
  2. Article: Earthquake Clouds, a reliable precursor,Science & Utopya 64, 53~57 (1999)
  3. Image 20000223 21:00 Two Turkey Geoeruptions "A", having a prediction, and "B", also having two M4 on 5/7/2000
  4. Image 19990926 12:00 The 7.2 Turkey EQ Cloud
  5. Image 20010103 5:00 The 4.3 San Fernando EQ Cloud, whose epicenter was pinpointed with a magnitude >=4.3 on 1/4/2001
  6. Map. The 4.3 San Fernando, California earthquake on 1/14/2001,at the pinpointed dot exactly.
  7. Image 20010320 15:30. The 4.1 Hollister geoeruption, having an excellent prediction at Mark "E"
  8. Map. The 4.1 Hollister, California earthquake on 7/2/2001, at the pinpointed Mark "E" exactly
  9. Image. 980101 07:32 The 6.1 Afghanistan EQ Cloud
  10. Copy. The Afghanistan EQ prediction signed by the USGS
  11. Image 990516 17:00 The 6.7 Mexico EQ cloud
  12. The Mexico EQ prediction signed by the USGS
  13. Image 20010226 18:30 A Seattle Geoeruption, showed for an earthquake of magnitude >=5 at 9:14 p.m. on 2/ 27/2001
  14. Essay. My Seattle Earthquake Prediction Is Successful
  15. Essay. Satellite Data Problems
  16. Essay. Earthquake Database Problems
  17. Problems of the World Earthquake Database of the U S Geological Survey
  18. Essay. The 7.0 Hector Mine, Southern California Earthquake Shows That I Am Right (Rewrite)
  19. http://helix.nature.com/debates/earthquake/equake_frameset.htmlNature Debate: Is there reliable prediction of individual earthquakes a realistic scientific goal?


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

Sign Our GuestbookGuestbookView Our Guestbook

Updated: January 1, 2003 | Webmaster