EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION

Channel 7 News Interview

- June 25, 1999 -

On the morning of June 25, 1999, KABC assignment editor Michelle Hedman called Wenying Shou that they would interview us for our earthquake prediction. At 3:00 p.m. reporter Miriam Hernandez interviewed us at our apartment. At 5:13, 5:26, and 5:30, TV Channel 7 three times reported that a Southern California man said he had predicted last week's Mexico earthquake , and at 5:30, firstly showed that Zhonghao Shou was looking for earthquake clouds from satellite images on his Macintosh computer, then showed the 6.7 Mexico earthquake prediction on May 17, 1999 [1] having a signature from the U. S. Geological Survey, and the corresponding Satellite Image 19990516 17:00 [2], having a line-shaped earthquake cloud which is different from big mass-shaped weather clouds. Both the prediction and the satellite image were already exhibited on our web- site. This program repeat at 11:00 p.m.

TV Channel 7 also reported the opinion of Dr.Lucy Jones of the USGS, Pasadena. She repeated that vapors of earthquake clouds forming underground was "impossible", about which she had told D.L. Ulin, a news man from L.A. Weekly newspaper, to deny my work. To solve this problem, Shou wrote her a letter on June 10, 1999 to give two examples to demonstrate that Dr. Jones's opinion was wrong. (See the letter)

Shou also asked her two "Yes or No" questions: (1) Can she explain what the cloud on the image 9801010732.jpg (on the cover of this site) is? A meteorologist from UCLA, whose field was special clouds, admitted that it is not a weather cloud. (2) Can she make predictions as good as his? Jones has not responded it yet.

Now let's gave more evidence.

(1) "Before the Haicheng earthquake, ...in the shade of a frozen reservoir, a part of ice melted in that chill and cold winter" [3]. This fact answers a common question why people do not feel earthquake heat in many cases. It is because earthquake heat is much smaller than meteorological heat, but exists commonly.

(2) "The wells extract a mixture of steam and water with temperatures in the 250 oC to 350 oC range (...) from depths between 1500 and 3000 m." before three big earthquakes ( The 6.6 Imperial Valley earthquake on October 15, 1979, The 6.1 Victoria earthquake on June 9, 1980, and The 5.4 Cerro Prieto earthquake on February 7, 1987 [4].

(3) "Before medium and strong earthquakes, due to local force effect, a lot of gas emitted, which has already been evidenced by many monitored results. Relying on diffusion and penetration, an abnormality of gas takes time rising up from underground to surface" [5].

Jones said that Shou predicted "hundreds" of earthquakes to them, and only "two" were showed, which was not true completely. In fact, Shou has predicted only 38 earthquakes to the USGS and all are listed on our website.

Shou said that he was not as effective as what Jones implied. He needs four days in general to make a prediction because he has neither an hourly distribution of surface currents that affect his prediction the most, nor instruments to monitor where vapors of earthquake clouds erupt. All of "more likely" and "the most likely" items rely on his hard estimate.

In his letter, Shou also asked Jones how she could deny the possibility of vapor formation, but she has not replied yet.

Jones also attacked Shou's predictions having big windows for his "general " statements. He checked it, and agreed that is a problem, but not fatal. It can be proved by using the Parkfield (36.00N, 120.50W) prediction of the USGS on November 15, 1993 as an example to simulate No. 36 and No. 37 predictions. The following is two simulations.

The "general" statement of Prediction 36 has a time window "within 47 days"; a latitude window 6 degrees (27~33 N); a longitude window 4 degrees(113~117W); and size window" >=4 ML". Then we expand the Parkfield prediction to the same windows as the above, and get time 11/15~12/31/1993, latitude 33~39 N, longitude 118.5~122.5W, and size >=4 ML. The result shows that no earthquake falls within the simulated windows.

The "general" statement of Prediction 37 is time "within 48 days", location Mexico (<29N), and size >=5 ML. Expand the windows of the Parkfield prediction to even much bigger than those of Prediction 37, i.e. time: within 63 days (11/15/1993 ~ 1/16/1994); area : both California and Mexico; and size >=5 ML. The result is "No" either.

We hope that Jones will discuss with us seriously and scientificly because earthquake prediction research concerns to people's lives. We also hope that if Jones can not reply yes to our two "Yes or No" questions, she will support our research.

Our success belongs to not only us, but also the USGS, giving dada and date signatures; the GOES-8, offering satellite images; and all visitors to our website from around the world, encouraging us to continue our research. We are very confident in our work, and will devote to it continuously. Our dream is that one day people do not worry about big earthquakes anymore. We hope that people will understand and support us to overcome any impediments.

Finally, we would like to thank TV Channel 7 again for their report.

References

  1. the 6.7 Mexico earthquake prediction on May 17, 1999
  2. Image 19990516 17:00
  3. Yang, C.S. Temporal and spatial distribution of anomalous ground water changes before the 1975 Haicheng earthquake. Acta Seismologica Sinica 4, No.1, 84-89 (1982).
  4. Glowacka, E. & Nava, F. A. Major earthquakes in Mexicali Valley, Mexico, and fluid extraction at Cerro Prieto geothermal field. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86, No.1A , 93-105 (1996).
  5. Giang Zu-Ji et cl. An experimental study of temperature increasing mechanism of satellitic thermo-infrared. Acta Seismologica Sinica 19, No. 2, 197-201 (1997).


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

Sign Our GuestbookGuestbookView Our Guestbook

Updated: June 28, 1999 | Webmaster