Talk:Earthquake prediction

message: We have left hanging an issue raised by Elriana (above, 02:44, 15 Feb.) about the "Difficulty or impossibility" section, that "" As I noted then, that section has been seriously hacked. In its current recent form it makes a bald assertion that "", makes reference to two theories without explaining what they mean, and then concludes: "" I believe the effect of this on most readers is that their eyes glaze over, and they move one without the slightest understanding.
I propose restoration of the "Difficulty or impossibility" section to its previous location (following the notable predictions) and extent, more or less as seen in this verision (Aug. 2014).
In its previous incarnation this section came after the notable quakes section, so that instead of lecturing to the reader that prediction of quakes is impossible, the reader is first shown that the record of earthquake prediction is disappointing. This section then addressed why that is the case, mentioning both that prediction may be impossible, or merely "fiendishly difficult".  Although the latter is alluded to in the section title, in the current recent version it is not even mentioned, showing the glaring inadequacy of the present version.
Whether earthquake prediction is even possible is the most significant aspect of this topic. It warrants adequate treatment, and is a fitting conclusion to the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse this proposal, and have brought back the section from Aug. 2014 (more or less). JerryRussell (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, thank you, Jerry. I was thinking we should wait a bit in case anyone wanted to object, but there's no harm done, as this in no way impairs any discussion. I'll adjust my comments to match. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you also, JJ, for restoring the sources. The article is looking better all the time. JerryRussell (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks to you both! This section makes much more sense now. I could probably still quibble with the grammar and presentation, but would like to see how the current (restored) version is received by others before contemplating any modifications.Elriana (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Difficulty or impossibility" proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Earthquake prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002130801/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161211/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Earthquake prediction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119050306/http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument to http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument
*Added  tag to http://www.protezionecivile.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055905/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf
*Added  tag to ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/parkf.pdf
*Added  tag to ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/kjvan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130427234807/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602192133/http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751 to http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429162009/http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf to http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf
*Added  tag to http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/ioangrl98.pdf
*Added  tag to http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/pepilamia99.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603121040/http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf to http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.upo.es/eps/troncoso/Citas/ESWA10/citaESWA-3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161347/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf to http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The largest earthquakes can now be detected via gravity waves. This gives relatively accurate determination just about instantly (speed of light) when measured at a suitable distance. Suitable distances far enough for the equipment to have some time to process the result before the normal earthquake arrives, but otherwise rather close. It's something like 1000 km. 97.104.70.92 (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing earthquake prediction – which is about anticipating future earthquakes, that have not yet happened – with earthquake warning, which is about events that have already happened, but at a remote location. Also, your "" is little more than "has been", with various caveats. As Susan Hough said back in November: "" ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left out new method based on gravity waves 

message: While it is useful to know it I am not sure it assists the article.   ManosHacker talk 20:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Some thing where I might agree with you, but more declaratively: that material does not "assist" the article. And very amatuerish. That is the kind of material that should not be allowed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earthquake memory in time and space 

message: There are two excerpts tagged in the article regarding verifiability. A suggestion was made on February 3, 2020 at 14:02 which has not been properly addressed. These excerpts are:
# "of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to seven hours beforehand" ( from the Section "VAN seismic electric signals" )
#  "but also a false alarm rate of 89%" ( from the Section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )
I tagged the above two excerpts (as recommended by Mikenorton on
February 5, 2020 at 13:50) and, in view of the fact that the above two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN), I suggested that they should be deleted.--EyeCont (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections on VAN (tagged for verifiability) 

message: This is a literature update that corresponds to the following addition to the last but one paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals" or to the second paragraph
of the section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":
The above cited papers are the following:
* Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S.; Lazaridou, M. S. (18 March 2013), "Seismic Electric Signals: An additional fact showing their physical interconnection with seismicity", Tectonophysics, 589: 116–125, Bibcode:2013Tectp.589..116V,
* Christopoulos, Stavros-Richard G.; Skordas, Efthimios S.; Sarlis, Nicholas V. (January 2020), "On the Statistical Significance of the Variability Minima of the Order Parameter of Seismicity by Means of Event Coincidence Analysis", Applied Sciences, 10 (2): 662, doi:10.3390/app10020662
* Donges, J.F.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Siegmund, J.F.; Donner, R.V. (2016), "Event coincidence analysis for quantifying statistical interrelationships between event time series", The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 225 (3): 471–487, arXiv:1508.03534, doi:10.1140/epjst/e2015-50233-y, ISSN 1951-6401
If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature update ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" or "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" ) 

message: The following addition is suggested to be added to the fourth paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals":
* Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003a), "Long-range correlations in the electric signals that precede rupture: Further investigations", Physical Review E, 67 (2): 021109, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..67b1109V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021109, PMID 12636655
* Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003b), "Attempt to distinguish electric signals of a dichotomous nature", Physical Review E, 68 (3): 031106, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..68c1106V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.031106, PMID 14524749
If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature update II ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" ) 

message: The following source's content is suggested to be added to the third paragraph of the section: "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":
The above contains the exact excerpt from the encyclopedia. I feel should be reproduced in the article, as it answers an open question.--EyeCont (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work update ( section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" ) 

message: In the section "2008: Greece (VAN)" the following phrase should be added:
*Uyeda, Seiya; Kamogawa, Masashi (2010). "Reply to Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"". Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 91 (18): 163–163. doi:10.1029/2010EO180004. ISSN 2324-9250.
If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--EyeCont (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing rebuttal ( section "2008: Greece (VAN)" ) 

message: I haven't had time to look these through in detail, but I'm not sure that adding so many extra citations to the Van method in this article, with no other views expressed will lead to any sort of balanced article. My impression, and it has to stay as that for obvious reasons, is that the mainstream earthquake prediction/forecasting community are just ignoring the VAN method. What this article needs is views from uninterested third parties that show some sort of general acceptance of the method (or otherwise), so if you have some of those, they would be good to see. Mikenorton (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Significant space has been given here for inline criticism (in fact criticism pervades the whole article). Critique without the answers addressing it is biased but the specific article is not the right place for the history of VAN method scientific debate. As duplicates between this article and VAN method article should be avoided, I propose migrating the debate there. This will result to a clean-up here. The method can be presented in a summary followed by the mainstream seismology view and a link for further reading in VAN method article.   ManosHacker talk 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, let's discuss improvements to the the VAN method article on its talk page, rather than here. I've just realised that I removed that page from my watchlist some time ago, when things were getting heated, so I've only now realised that EyeCont has proposed similar changes to both articles. That location is definitely the best place to sort things out and we should just have a summary in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

text: "The main question that interests the reader is "Does the VAN method work?" This may be seen as encompassing three questions - (1) whether predictions are predictive; (2) whether predictions issued using this method are actionable; and (3) whether other groups using this method are successful. The answers, unfortunately, are: (1) it is not clear whether they are predictive. The VAN group has done poorly in hosting their data publicly. Raw datasets and a list of predictions including misses and false positives are not present publicly. The updated time-series method describes medium-range predictions that then trigger short-term prediction algorithms using local seismic data, and in principle, this seems a plausible approach to prediction, i.e. via overlap of methods. Mechanisms for SES generation are physical and testable. The updated VAN method remains an unvalidated hypothesis. (2) Predictions issued using this method are not actionable beyond increased local seismic monitoring and increased awareness of earthquake safety. Predictions ought not be assumed correct—with the caveat that increased local seismic activity may be taken as precursory but outside the framework of a validated scientific process. Thus it is up to the relevant governmental body to make decisions in the absence of scientific confidence. Unfortunately the data are not present to make any stronger recommendation. (3) It is not clear whether the high rate of false positives has been overcome in trials in Japan or elsewhere". Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Not true. That article was simply pointing out that the VAN group is now using a parameter named beta rather than kappa as its predictor. Still, there is no public hosting of their datasets. And it is still not clear whether their work is helpful for EQ prediction. 119.252.119.106 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Daniel S. Helman - Education Division, College of Micronesia-FSM, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia / WHOIS 119.252.119.106 - State of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Possible WP:COI   ManosHacker talk 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on EyeCont's proposals 

message: A section for politics regarding earthquake prediction is missing from the article.
# It should be stated that it is the state's responsibility to warn, not the scientists.
# There is a court decision on the case of Laquila EQ against scientists who publicly stated (predicted?) that the earthquake would not occur.
# The possible actions for taking measures are not discussed and only evaquation is mentioned, which is impossible in large cities and megacities.
# Funding of precursor phenomena vs seismicity is also missing.
   ManosHacker talk 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: Is this citation acceptable? I think we should summarize this section.   ManosHacker talk 20:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machine Learning 

message: Recently, an edit was made which added the text "However in a 2021 paper coauthored by 37 researchers in the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite, the main scientific objective of which is to investigate possible correlations between electromagnetic perturbations and the occurrence of major earthquakes, it has been reported that, as shown in a more recent perspective, the claims based on self-organized criticality stating that at any moment any small earthquake can eventually cascade to a large event, do not stand in view of the results obtained to date by natural time analysis." 
This is essentially an appeal to authority to say what has already been said, namely "that earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed". I reverted the passage and added the Martucci et al (2021) reference to the subsequent paragraph. I did this because
* These references are not a secondary source, nor have the primary sources been evaluated in the literature. If they had, we would be citing those discussions.
* The number of authors is not relevant.
* The possibility of EM perturbations accompanying major earthquakes is mentioned elsewhere. 
* Natural Time Analysis is already mentioned in the VAN section. Any additional discussion needs to be done either there or in its own section. Mentioning it in this place without explanation is confusing.
Elriana (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty vs Impossibility Rehash 

message: Hello, this is Xiaohan Song a student from Stanford who created a wiki page for the earthquake cycle as my course project. Would you like to make the earthquake cycle term redirect to this new page?
Xiaohansong (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection