EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION

My Prediction to both the USGS & the Indian Miditech

Is Correct

- April 26, 2005 -

Requested by the Indian Miditech, I predicted an earthquake of magnitude more than or equal to 4.5 in the Red Sea of 18~21.5N, 34.5~40E with this image [1] within 75 days from Jan. 5, 2005 to Mar. 19 to both the United States Geological Survey (USGS) & the Indian Miditech at 1:52 UTC of Jan. 5, 2005. I also predicted this earthquake to the public by our web site at 3:20 UTC of Jan. 5, 2005. Limited by the predicted area and magnitude, a random guess in the history with a 75-day time window as the same big as the predicted time window takes a probability of 13.2% or a risk of 1 in 7.5 to be successful, mentioned to the USGS, the Indian Miditech & the public with the prediction on Jan. 5, 2005.

I had not predicted new earthquakes to the USGS for long time due to two earthquake data problems. First, data loss is serious and common. For example, the USGS lost No. 29 earthquake in Table 5 of our Bam Earthquake Prediction & Space Technology (Bam Paper) [2], which had made me upset and busy for years. It also lost 4 in 8 earthquakes in Taiwan in Table 3 of the Bam Paper. If only depending on the USGS, Fig. 6 of the Bam Paper would have become unexplainable. Moreover, the USGS lost data 24.2% in Turkey, and 32.6% in Taiwan, and so did Turkey 31.5% and Taiwan 21% according to my investigation [3].

Second, data error is also serious and common. For instance, the USGS measured magnitude 8 for the devastating Indonesia earthquake on Dec. 26, 2004 in the beginning [4], but increased it to 9 after the tsunami, which reveals large error. Large error exists not only on magnitude, but also on epicenter. However, some scientists subjectively suppose their data without error, called "Peer on". For example, an American scientist of the USGS judged its reported earthquake in List 1 on Jan. 27, 1999 unsuitable for my prediction No. 29 due to a longitude error of 0.01 although he could not answer me how much error the data had. Afterward, I found its lost earthquake on Jan. 25, 1999, perfectly for the prediction.

However, I made the above prediction to satisfy the Indian Miditech. I worried about those data problems. Fortunately, the USGS did not lose the earthquake for the prediction, cited in List 2, although both the USGS and the European Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) lost a couple of M4.5 for the clouds on Dec. 24, 2004 [5]. Therefore, I would like to thank the USGS for the data. I hope the USGS to "Peer on" its data loss and error, so I will be able to predict new earthquakes to it again without worrying about those data problems.



List 1 for my Prediction No. 29 in the Bam Paper, the USGS Reported Data & Lost Data
ListDateLatitude (N) Longitude(W)Magnitude(M)
No. 29 prediction 19981228~19990213 33~39116~1204.2~5.4
USGS Data19990127 10:4436.81115.994.6
Lost Date19990125 18:5236.81116.04 4.2


List 2 for my Prediction to both the USGS & the Indian Miditech
ListDateLatitude (N) Longitude(E)Magnitude(M)Probability(%)
prediction 20050105~0319 18~21.534.5~40 >=4.513.2
USGS Data20050217 0:4919.03 39.124.613.2



References

  1. Image 20041207 12:30 exhibited on our web site in Page 24 at 3:20 of Jan. 5, 2005
  2. Bam Earthquake Prediction & Space Technology Published by OOSA & No.16 SEMINARS of the UN
  3. Hope for Complete & Accurate Earthquake Data
  4. Marris, E. Inadequate warning system left Asia at the mercy of tsunami. Jan. 5, 2005 news@nature.com
  5. Image 20041204 10:00 Both USGS & EMSC Lost a couple of M4.5 earthquakes for these clouds


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

Sign Our GuestbookGuestbookView Our Guestbook

Updated: April 26, 2005 | Webmaster