EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION

The cloud of the M5.4 Los Angeles quake

- August 29, 2008 -

Some people asked me where the cloud of the M5.4 Los Angeles earthquake on Jul. 29, 2008 [1] was. It was different for me to answer for two reasons. First, my computer had not received satellite data since July 4. Second, a short-life earthquake cloud may be lost due to a low frequency of satellite data collection [2,3]. Because a friend helped me to recover the lost data, I have found the cloud and can answer this question now.

There is an extremely high coincidence between the epicenter and the cloud that predicted the epicenter exactly, arrowed in Image 200807121800 [4]. This coincidence demonstrates “Earthquake Vapor, a reliable precursor” again. By contrast, various widely studied precursors have not produced a reliable prediction, yet, even though these studies cost a billion dollars a year. I have demonstrated the vapor precursor. What are their results?

An interesting story was a comparison between the Los Angeles prediction of the JPL on Aug. 3, 1999 and my disproof on Aug. 10 [5]. JPL had a multimillion dollar budget [6] with the most modern technology. However, my prediction of the M7 Hector Mine Earthquake demonstrated my success on Oct. 16, 1999 even though I had no funds [7].

Another interesting story is about “Real-time forecasts of tomorrow’s earthquakes in California”, published by Gerstenberger et al. on May 19, 2005 [8]. Since then, 1,188 tomorrows have elapsed, but those authors have not yet made any “Real-time forecasts” in California. The M5.4 Los Angeles earthquake was in California. What is the “Real-time forecast”? Why can this earthquake have no so called moderate (M4~5.9) “Aftershock”?

If people really worry about devastating earthquakes, I hope that they will help to convince the government to solve the satellite data problems and the earthquake data problems [2, 3] that only need about 0.1% of the existing prediction budgets. If so, the Earthquake Vapor will predict a large earthquake within a radius of 10 km independently of very cold surroundings, and magnitude with an error margin of +/- 0.2M. Later, if more work is done to narrow the time window into a week in accordance with my concept, successful evacuations from the danger zones will become realistic.

If not, devastating earthquakes will continue to kill people for two reasons. First, all widely studied methods, denied by the Nature Debates in 1999, will not work because they have neither a scientific model to explain essential earthquake phenomena in theory, e.g. the Bam cloud, nor predictions with statistic significance to demonstrate their reliability in practice. Second, the satellite data problems and the earthquake data problems make the Vapor Precursor too different to save people except encountering a very cold surrounding like the Bam cloud, but it needs my poor computer and my health to work well.

Thank a friend for setting up this new website and paying its costs to maintain my work. I will predict earthquakes again in one year to appeal governments and people to support my work with facilities and staff. Donation and advert are welcome.

References

The M5.4 Los Angeles earthquake map by the USGS on Jul.29, 2008
Darrell Harrington & Zhonghao Shou. Bam Prediction & Space Technology Seminars of the United Nations Programme on Space Applications 16 39-63 (2005)
Zhonghao Shou. Earthquake Vapor, a reliable precursor. Earthquake Prediction 21-51 (ed. Mukherjee Saumitra. Brill Academic Publisher, Leiden-Boston, 2006)
The M5.4 Los Angeles cloud on Jul. 12, 2008
California Earthquake Situation Analysis
Tom Clarke. Water thrown on earthquake prediction. Nature News. Aug.23, 2001
The 7.0 Hector Mine, Southern California Earthquake Shows That I Am Right (Rewrite)
Gerstenberger, M.C., Wiemer, S, Jones, L.M., & Reasenberg, P.A., Real-time forecasts of tomorrow's earthquakes in California. Nature 435, 328-331 (2005)

Sign Our Guestbook ViewOur Guestbook

Updated: August 29, 2008 | Webmaster