EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION

About K-B's Prediction

- September 4, 2004 -

UC News Wire on Jan. 6, 2004 reported an earthquake prediction by Keilis-Borok's (K-B) team in UCLA, "An earthquake of at least magnitude 6.4 by Sept. 5, 2004, in a region that includes the southeastern portion of the Mojave Desert, and an area south of it". Mojave Desert locates in Southern California about 34.5~35.5N, and 116~118W. "An area south of it" is nuclear without a boundary. This prediction has widely been spread by the USGS, while some residents asked me for my opinion.

I replied that the prediction would be 90% wrong. First, K-B's theory by "long chains of small earthquakes" to predict earthquakes is not a truth for three reasons. One of them is that some large earthquakes did not have "long chains of small earthquakes". For example, the 7.8 Tangshan earthquake was reported without foreshocks [1], i.e. their theory is not universal at least. Another of them is my theory and practice that prove "long chains of small earthquakes" to be unnecessary. For instance, the 6.8 Bam earthquake happened exactly in my predicted fault AB only by the cloud [2]. A random guess as the same as my coarse and fine predictions for the Bam earthquake has a low probability of 2% and close to 0 to be successful respectively [3]. The other of them is their theory without ability to explain essential earthquake phenomena, such as the hole in the roof due to a steam eruption of the Tangshan earthquake (Fig. 2), the Bam cloud (Fig. 3), and so on in our paper "Bam Earthquake Prediction & Space Technology" [3]. It is to say that their theory does not touch the key for earthquake prediction.

Second, UC News Wire also reported three other predictions of the team. (1) The Northridge earthquake was 21 days overdue for an 18-month prediction since the Landers earthquake on Jun. 28, 1992. (2) The 6.5 San Simeon earthquake was supposed to support their success. However, the earthquake was at 35.7N, 121.1W, 300 km out of their studied area: about 32~35.5N, 114.6~118.0W. It is unclear if their theory is like a large gun to hit anywhere they like. If so, why did it work neither for the studied area, nor for other directions and shorter distances? In fact, the M6.5 was triggered by an earthquake cloud, exhibited in our web site on Oct. 11, 2003 [4]. (3) The Japan earthquake prediction for an M7 was supposed as another success. However, it has 3 choices: an M8.1 and an M7.4 on Sep. 25, 2003, and an M7 on Oct. 31. It is unclear why the team does not choose the M7. By contrast, I predicted an M6 or over in Northern Japan by an earthquake cloud [5] on Sep. 20, 2003. After the M8.1, many scientists congratulated my success, but I declined because the magnitude of the cloud did not reach M8.1. However, I showed another cloud, doubted as an M9 before, instead [6]. Later, the M7 reached my predicted magnitude, area and time exactly. Thus, I have some principles to judge my predictions roughly, while they do not. Moreover, the Japan prediction has a probability of 45% for a random guess that is not very reliable.

Third, I have not found an earthquake cloud or a geoeruption that predicte an M6.4 or over in Southern California, yet, although there are some problems.

On the other hand, I can not obtain the data I need. Satellite do not offer data for 2 to15 hours sometimes, while a short life earthquake cloud exists only in 35 minutes. Therefore, I am not sure if I lost a large earthquake cloud or not. Moreover, satellite images do not offer good data sometimes, either [7]. In addition, some large earthquakes happened only a few hours after an earthquake cloud.

In my opinion, their prediction is 90% wrong. Since their prediction covers the black triangle "ABC" & the California-Nevada border "de" [8] where has heat release recently, I hope the residents to care of a sudden increase of temperature.

(There are more problems, but too long to write down).



References

  1. Zhang, Y.Z. On the anomalous crustal, bulge, and aseismic creep prior to the 1976 Tangshan earthquake. Acta Seismologica Sinica 3, No.1, 11-22 (1981).
  2. Image 20031221 0:00 The 6.8 S Iran EQ Cloud showed at 12:58 a.m. December 25, 2003.
  3. Zhonghao Shou & Darrell Harrington. Bam Earthquake Prediction & Space Technology UN/Islamic Republic of Iran Regional Workshop on the Use of Space Technology for Environmental Security, Disaster Rehabilitation and Sustainable Developmant presented by Iranian Scientist Amoli (aansari@Iran-irsc.com) Tehran, Iran. May 9, 2004
  4. Image 20031005 13:30 The 6.5 San Simeon, California EQ Cloud
  5. Image 20030917 0:00 The 7.0 Japan EQ Cloud
  6. Image 20030507 0:00 The 8.1 & 7.4 Japan EQ Clouds
  7. Image 20040809 9:30 A Satellite data problem
  8. Image 19990726 9:00 The black triangle "ABC" & the California-Nevada border "de"


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

Sign Our GuestbookGuestbookView Our Guestbook

Updated: September 4, 2004 | Webmaster