Astronomer Predicts Major Earthquake for Japan

[Ivan Seeking]

This will either debunk itself in a week, or we move this prediction to another forum.

TOKYO (AP) _ A Japanese researcher is causing a stir in Tokyo with a prediction based on his study of radio waves that a major destructive earthquake is highly likely to hit the city this week

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/quake_prediction_030915.html




Edit: A summary of this thread:

A quake with a magnitude >= 7.0 was predicted for Tokyo for Tuesday or Wednesday. In fact, Tokyo experienced a magnitude 5.5 quake on Saturday.

The energy was about 99.5% less than expected.

The Richter value was in error by 21%

I would think that the odds of a 5.5 quake on any day is no worse than 1:3500. So, if we were off by three days, we might allow for odds like 1:1000 of getting this close by chance. Of course this is just for perspective and not meant as hard numbers. The real number may well be more like 1:100.

I didn’t find a good number for the frequency of Japanese quakes, but I did find a couple of interesting, related sites.

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/current/japan.html

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~geol108/eq4/site_directory.htm#Earthquakes

It is not clear, but the key measure apparently [according to this news report] is measured in reference to the Richter Scale value and not in terms of energy. It seems that an arugment might be made that with no better than 1:100 chance of random success, this quake was predicted within 21% of the actual magnitude. It is also possible that the result [if we use energy as the indicator] was in fact only 0.5% of the expected value.

Edit #2: Then, a week later...
TOKYO, Sept. 26 — Three powerful earthquakes, one of them of potentially historic magnitude [estimated as being an 8.0], struck Hokkaido in northern Japan early Friday morning, causing major structural damage, NBC News reported. The quakes injured more than 240 people and generated a 7-foot-high tsunami off the coast of Hokkaido. Tsunami advisories were issued for much of the Pacific region, including Japan, Russia and the Philippines.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/971921.asp?pne=msntv

This event appears to yield odds of random success - of predicting any quake >=7.0, anywhere in Japan within one week - of around 1:600.

[zoobyshoe]

Predicting a major earthquake for
Japan is about as risky as
flipping a coin: "Well, I wasn't
completely correct about the
`major' part but the was
an earthquake!"

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Predicting a major earthquake for
Japan is about as risky as
flipping a coin: "Well, I wasn't
completely correct about the
`major' part but the was
an earthquake!"

I agree. Still, if this guy had hit the day and magnitude with a high degree of accuracy - say within 12 hours and within 30% magnitude - then he might as least bare watching, but otherwise it really wouldn't mean much. I heard a report of a 5.5 in Tokyo today. I have not seen this reported elsewhere yet.

Here is another recent event to help put this into perspective:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2938248.stm

It would take more than even one very accurate hit to really get peoples attention.

[zoobyshoe]

Tsunami,

Your link has too many https.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Tsunami,

Your link has too many https.

Yes, I know. I can never get this @#%^&!@#$#%^%$$^^&&^$$%$ thing to work right. I've done it twice and deleted my post twice. It's making me BANANAS!!!!!!!!!!

[Tsu]

Tokyo hit by earthquake, typhoon
Saturday, September 20, 2003 Posted: 0545 GMT ( 1:45 PM HKT)


http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=f666bdeedbb4aedf

edit: I've got it hammered now! Screw that flippin' hyperlink button!! [:D]

[Tsu]

So, would a 5.5 magnitude earthquake AND a typhoon hitting at the same time be fairly equivalent of a 7 magnitude earthquake? [:D]

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Predicting a major earthquake for
Japan is about as risky as
flipping a coin: "Well, I wasn't
completely correct about the
`major' part but the was
an earthquake!"
He predicted 7 or greater. The
quake was 5.5. I guess he can quote me, if he wants.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
He predicted 7 or greater. The
quake was 5.5. I guess he can quote me, if he wants.

We posted at exactly the same time. You missed my "quetion"! [;)]

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
He predicted 7 or greater. The
quake was 5.5.

Since we did in fact see a quake withing 2 days and 25% of the prediction, my left eyebrow gets raised exactly 0.125". I'm going to take a little closer look.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Since we did in fact see a quake withing 2 days and 25% of the prediction, my left eyebrow gets raised exactly 0.125". I'm going to take a little closer look.
Mine raised APPROXIMATELY 0.25" (I'm well practiced in eyebrow raising) - I didn't take an EXACT measurement like Ivan obviously did.[:D] Ivan - you're a little STRANGE![;)] But then, I do like strange...

Personally, I'm going to give it a 7 since it was REALLY a double-whammy.[8)] Let's give that scientist a round of applause and add a Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award (anyone remember those?)![6)]

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
"...my left eyebrow gets raised exactly 0.125".
Would this be millimeters or
thousandths?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Ivan - you're a little STRANGE![;)]

Keep it up and I'll turn your fish into a guppy. [:D]

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Would this be millimeters or
thousandths?

that was 0.125" as in inches. Obviously I'm feeling more generous than you. [:D]

Also, a close look reveals that I don't have eyebrows.

Primitives...hah!

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Keep it up and I'll turn your fish into a guppy. [:D]
Yeah. I'm shakin' in my fins.[a)]

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Yeah. I'm shakin' in my fins.[a)]
[:D] [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]

Not bad Tsunami! I rate that as a seven head funny. No wonder you're up for chief comedian.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
that was 0.125" as in inches. Obviously I'm feeling more generous than you. [:D I am actually impressed that he
got the time and location right.
I was expecting there would be the
usual 4.0 somewhere in
Japan and that he'd try to take
credit for having forseen it. It
could be his system works accur-
ately, except when there's
a typhoon on the way.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I am actually impressed that he
got the time and location right.
I was expecting there would be the
usual 4.0 somewhere in
Japan and that he'd try to take
credit for having forseen it. It
could be his system works accur-
ately, except when there's
a typhoon on the way.
I am nowhere NEAR being a physicist (didn't even LIKE it in school - sorry guys, but there are LOTS of us in the world![:D]) but, would it be possible that the presence of the typhoon kept the magnitude down to a 5.5 instead of the predicted 7?

[Ivan Seeking]

Whoops. I made a giant mistake in the error. I treated the magnitude of the quake as a simple linear scale. As I recall from my geophysics class, in reality, the difference in the actual energy of a 5.5 and a 7.0 is about 6 or 7 times the energy. So really our margin of error is probably about 600-700%.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Tsunami
...would it be possible that the presence of the typhoon kept the magnitude down to a 5.5 instead of the predicted 7?
Your typhoon would be shifting
alot of water around. There is
some remote chance this shift in
weight would affect the shifting
of the tectonic plates.

Likewise the typhoon would change
the barometric pressure consid-
erably which, because it would
be affecting such a huge area,
might also have some effect on
the plates.

Thats as far as I can stretch to
come up with possible ways it
could have modified the earth-
quake.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Whoops. I made a giant mistake in the error. I treated the magnitude of the quake as a simple linear scale. As I recall from my geophysics class, in reality, the difference in the actual energy of a 5.5 and a 7.0 is about 6 or 7 times the energy. So really our margin of error is probably about 600-700%.

Still... a 5.5 is nothing to sneeze at - especially in the middle of a TYPHOON! (gezundheidt[:D])

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Whoops. I made a giant mistake in the error. I treated the magnitude of the quake as a simple linear scale.
The Richter Magnitude Scale
Address:http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/general/handouts/richter.html

Read this, Richter Boy, and let
us know what it says.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Your typhoon would be shifting
alot of water around. There is
some remote chance this shift in
weight would affect the shifting
of the tectonic plates.

Likewise the typhoon would change
the barometric pressure consid-
erably which, because it would
be affecting such a huge area,
might also have some effect on
the plates.

Thats as far as I can stretch to
come up with possible ways it
could have modified the earth-
quake.

Really I had thought about this when Tsunami mentioned the idea in jest [or maybe not in jest?]. Lake Oroville [man made] in Northern California was filled in about 1968 I think. This lake is 900 feet deep in some places and it covers a vast number of square miles in the many tributaries that constitute the feather river system; which is what feeds a significant % of So Cal with its water incidentally. Not long after the lake was filled, Oroville had about 5.5 earthquake - which, you might imagine, made everyone feel real good downstream of one of the [if not THE] worlds largest earth fill dams. Since then, some geologists have calculated that the added water weight could have been a factor in the earthquake.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The Richter Magnitude Scale
Address:http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/general/handouts/richter.html

Read this, Richter Boy, and let
us know what it says.

LOL. I was using 3 instead of 31. I had better break out the books.

31 times more energy than the amount associated with the preceding whole number value

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Since then, some geologists have calculated that the added water weight could have been a factor in the earthquake.
And I came to the same conclusion
off the top of my head without
any geological training. Where do
I write to get my check?

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
LOL. I was using 3 instead of 31. I had better break out the books.
Two things going on here: The
amplitude increases tenfold for
each whole number increase, but
the amount of energy increases
by about 31 times the previous
whole number. Two possible per-
centages.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Where do I write to get my check?
Any where you want! Just make it out TO ME!!![:D]

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Where do I write to get my check?

USGS. Tell them that Ivan said it's OK.

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
USGS. Tell them that Ivan said it's OK.
USGS - AKA Tsunami!!!!

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Two things going on here: The
amplitude increases tenfold for
each whole number increase, but
the amount of energy increases
by about 31 times the previous
whole number. Two possible per-
centages.

Yes as soon as I saw this - actually as soon as I started getting the Zoobitude - I knew what I had done. I never could come to terms with the energies involved. I let my reserve cloud my memory.

This disparity between the scale used and the energy involved results from the non-linear response in the transfer of energy in the ground. There are also several different energy waves involved that spread the energy out in different ways. AS I RECALL, we have S(shear) waves, P (pressure) waves, and I think T waves??? Anyway, it boils down to three degrees of freedom. So, not all of the energy is actually felt. There are of course many other variables that govern the transfer of energy.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
...actually as soon as I started getting the Zoobitude

"Disposition:Generally retiring,though occasionally
agressive. Credited with
tearing apart bothersome
dogs."

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Any where you want! Just make it out TO ME!!![:D]
Here I answer your off the wall
quetion with what turns out to
be pretty much what a trained
geologist would say and YOU want
to get paid?? YOU want to get
paid?? YOU owe ME!!!!

Minimun geological consultation
fee is 10,000.00.

[Ivan Seeking]

Going back however:

Forecasting quakes is generally considered to be impossible with current technology, and Kushida's method of using anomalies in the VHF range of radio waves to predict the timing and intensity of tremors has not gained many believers in the scientific community.

So his predictive process could still be within 25% of the real value. I assume by intensity they mean Richter value and not energy. To me, this would be an unexpected relationship at best.

[zoobyshoe]

Nothing happens in a vaccum, and
the search for an earthquake
"prodrome" (term borrowed from
migraine terminology) is, no
doubt, a logical and scientific
undertaking.

I don't know enough about any of
the specific sciences he is call-
ing to his aid in making his predictions, to form an opinion
as to whether he's way off track
or not, but as far as I can see
from my two inch elevation, there
is nothing absurd looking in his
method.

It could well be the coming typh-
oon threw off his measurements
somehow, such that it inflated
his prediction of the magnitude.
Or it could be that he needs to
make adjustments on how he calculates magnitude.

I think he was close enough that
he shouldn't be discouraged. There
is the ominous possibility this
was just a forehock. A couple more
days to tell...

[Ivan Seeking]

If possible, I will start visiting his website. Eventually it is just a matter of hits and misses.

[Ivan Seeking]

Possibly a related story:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6112

[Ivan Seeking]

For the record then:
It seems that in terms of energy, the error was about 17,000%

[zoobyshoe]

What's 17,000% among friends?

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually the prediction was for 17000% more energy than we got. But technically:

The energy was about 99.5% less than expected.

The Richter value was in error by 21%

I would think that the odds of a 5.5 quake on any day is no worse than 1:3500. So, if we were off by three days, we might allow for odds like 1:1000 of getting this close by chance. Of course this is just for perspective and not meant as hard numbers.

I didn’t find a good number for the frequency of Japanese quakes, but I did find a couple of interesting, related sites.

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/current/japan.html

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~geol108/eq4/site_directory.htm#Earthquakes

[zoobyshoe]

They just had some more, Ivan. Wrong location but definitely the right magnitude:

Big earthquakes shake Japan island
Address:http://www.msnbc.com/news/971921.asp?pne=msntv

-zoob

[Zantra]

Hmmm...

Ok I'm not laughing anymore.. anyone else?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zantra
Hmmm...

Ok I'm not laughing anymore.. anyone else?

I have no idea how to gauge the odds as a function of distance. Still, it does seem a bit striking. I would imagine that hitting a 7.0 within 1 week and in the vicinity [geologically] could be significant. I think this guy deserves a good look.

[zoobyshoe]

Well, I think it's still wide open for debate since he got the location of the first one right and the timing right, but was way off on the magnitude.

These recent ones on the Island of Hokkaido are, really quite far away from the location of his prediction, but a magnitude 8 is huge, and fullfills what the prognosticator said in predicting greater than magnitude 7.

[Zantra]

Pretty accurate as far as earthquake predictions go. Of course I'd like to see him do it again, but it's an interesting theory

[zoobyshoe]

This is the trouble, as I said in my original post in this thread, that since Japan is one of the most earthquake prone places on earth, predicting an earthquake of appreciable magnitude there anytime in the next ten days is about as risky as flipping a coin.

The original quake was striking because he got the time and location right, but he flopped on the magnitude. The magnitude was his prime concern: he wanted to warn people to save lives.

Here, a week later the magnitude he predicted (very unusual) happens, but he's about a thousand miles off on the location.

You can't call his prediction a hit but it's too close to be a miss either. As Ivan said, he bears watching.

Now another quake predictor I read about has a theory based on a simple pattern of quakes in the pacific rim: major quake on west coast of South America is followed by major quake in Japan is followed by major quake on west coast of North America. In his system quakes around richter 6 count, as they follow the pattern.
I haven't been paying attention and don't know if there were any 6 or better quakes in South America recently, but maybe the three of us should buckle our seat belts just in case.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is the trouble, as I said in my original post in this thread, that since Japan is one of the most earthquake prone places on earth, predicting an earthquake of appreciable magnitude there anytime in the next ten days is about as risky as flipping a coin.

The original quake was striking because he got the time and location right, but he flopped on the magnitude. The magnitude was his prime concern: he wanted to warn people to save lives.

Here, a week later the magnitude he predicted (very unusual) happens, but he's about a thousand miles off on the location.

You can't call his prediction a hit but it's too close to be a miss either. As Ivan said, he bears watching.

Now another quake predictor I read about has a theory based on a simple pattern of quakes in the pacific rim: major quake on west coast of South America is followed by major quake in Japan is followed by major quake on west coast of North America. In his system quakes around richter 6 count, as they follow the pattern.
I haven't been paying attention and don't know if there were any 6 or better quakes in South America recently, but maybe the three of us should buckle our seat belts just in case.

Really, predicting a quake around 7.0 happening just somewhere in the world and getting within one week probably yields a random chance of success in the range of 1:2 - 1:4. 7.0s are much more common than 8.0s.

To predict a quake > 7.0 for anywhere in Japan within a week appears to yield a random chance of 1:50 to 1:200 for success. I am still trying to find a reliable number.


Number of Earthquakes per Year, Magnitude 7.0 or Greater
1900 - 1999 [entire world]



1900 13 1930 13 1960 22 1990 12
1901 14 1931 26 1961 18 1991 11
1902 8 1932 13 1962 15 1992N 23
1903 10 1933 14 1963 20 1993M 16
1904 16 1934 22 1964 15 1994 15
1905 26 1935 24 1965 22 1995E 25
1906 32 1936 21 1966 19 1996 22
1907 27 1937 22 1967 16 1997 20
1908 18 1938 26 1968 30 1998 16
1909 32 1939 21 1969 27 1999 23
1910 36 1940 23 1970 29
1911 24 1941 24 1971 23
1912 22 1942 27 1972 20
1913 23 1943* 41 1973 16
1914 22 1944 31 1974 21
1915 18 1945 27 1975 21
1916 25 1946 35 1976$ 25
1917 21 1947 26 1977 16
1918 21 1948 28 1978 18
1919 14 1949 36 1979 15
1920 8 1950 39 1980 18
1921 11 1951 21 1981 14
1922 14 1952 17 1982 10
1923 23 1953 22 1983 15
1924 18 1954 17 1984 8
1925 17 1955 19 1985 15
1926 19 1956 15 1986# 6
1927 20 1957 34 1987 11
1928 22 1958 10 1988 8
1929 19 1959 15 1989 7

Total 1900-1997 = 1960 events = 20 per year
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/7up.html

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is some good info.

Magnitudes of Significant Earthquakes

The USGS Earthquake Magnitude Working Group compiled a list of significant, past earthquakes for which reliable magnitude estimates are available. This list is not static and will be reviewed annually by the National Earthquake Information Center and revised as new research and results become available. (May take some time to load.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/docs/sign_eqs.htm

I count 9 Japanese quakes greater than 7.0 since 1891. This yields odds of random success - of predicting any quake >=7.0, anywhere in Japan within one week - of around 1:600.

My only caution regarding this number is this sentence in the USGS link:
past earthquakes for which reliable magnitude estimates are available

I don't know how many Japanese quakes this may exclude.

[zoobyshoe]

If you go to the little map in the story I linked to you can see that Hokkaido is a separate Island from Japan, and it is very far away from Tokyo, where he predicted the >7 quake. The epicenter is about as far from Tokyo as Vladivostok, Russia, and also as far away from Tokyo as parts of Korea. It is a totally different fault.
Think of it this way: if someone predicted a >7 quake for San Fransisco within a week, but it only got hit with a 5.5, and then a week later Portland got three, one of which was an 8, could we properly say the prediction was a hit? In my mind he was somewhere in a grey area between hit and miss which means, hopefully, that there is something to his methods that could be sharpened up to give more accurate results. He was quite certain Tokyo was in for it.
Knowing for certain that a specific city will be hit by a specific magnitude is the whole goal of trying to predict quakes.

[Ivan Seeking]

January 23, 1556

Shensi, China
830,000 fatalities
~8 Mag

From the link above.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
If you go to the little map in the story I linked to you can see that Hokkaido is a separate Island from Japan, and it is very far away from Tokyo, where he predicted the >7 quake. The epicenter is about as far from Tokyo as Vladivostok, Russia, and also as far away from Tokyo as parts of Korea. It is a totally different fault.
Think of it this way: if someone predicted a >7 quake for San Fransisco within a week, but it only got hit with a 5.5, and then a week later Portland got three, one of which was an 8, could we properly say the prediction was a hit? In my mind he was somewhere in a grey area between hit and miss which means, hopefully, that there is something to his methods that could be sharpened up to give more accurate results. He was quite certain Tokyo was in for it.
Knowing for certain that a specific city will be hit by a specific magnitude is the whole goal of trying to predict quakes.

Hm... He predicted >= 7 for Tokyo, which only turned out to be a 5.5, but was followed up by an 8 in Hokkaido. Could it be that his model predicted the amount of energy churning about in the Earth's crust around Tokyo more accurately than the data bears out, but for some reason not all of that energy was dissipated in the Tokyo earthquake, and went on to contribute to the large magnitude of the event at Hokkaido?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
If you go to the little map in the story I linked to you can see that Hokkaido is a separate Island from Japan, and it is very far away from Tokyo, where he predicted the >7 quake. The epicenter is about as far from Tokyo as Vladivostok, Russia, and also as far away from Tokyo as parts of Korea. It is a totally different fault.
Think of it this way: if someone predicted a >7 quake for San Fransisco within a week, but it only got hit with a 5.5, and then a week later Portland got three, one of which was an 8, could we properly say the prediction was a hit? In my mind he was somewhere in a grey area between hit and miss which means, hopefully, that there is something to his methods that could be sharpened up to give more accurate results. He was quite certain Tokyo was in for it.
Knowing for certain that a specific city will be hit by a specific magnitude is the whole goal of trying to predict quakes.

It was about 600 miles from Tokyo. Vladivostok, Russia, is about 900 miles. However, we are using data from the entire Japanese area. Some of the quakes listed were centered 300 or 400 miles out at sea. One was near the location of the present quake. Also, the fact that Japan proper is so active, to me further supports the use of this data for comparison.

Finally, considering the magnitude, this may have been a subduction zone quake. In this situation, local faults may be of little significance. I don't know if a subduction zone quake is possible in this location. I will look. [;)]

Edit. It seems that one internet map used was not very accurate. The distances indicated are adjusted.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by hypnagogue Hm... He predicted >= 7 for Tokyo, which only turned out to be a 5.5, but was followed up by an 8 in Hokkaido. Could it be that his model predicted the amount of energy churning about in the Earth's crust around Tokyo more accurately than the data bears out, but for some reason not all of that energy was dissipated in the Tokyo earthquake, and went on to contribute to the large magnitude of the event at Hokkaido?
I don't see any reason why this couldn't have been the case. If it were shown to be the case then it just points out the need for alot of refinements in his methods, because it doesn't do much good for him to be off by a thousand miles for the people who get hit. If he is unable to get the location right then the fact he can predict within a thousand mile radius is a mere curiosity.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Hm... He predicted >= 7 for Tokyo, which only turned out to be a 5.5, but was followed up by an 8 in Hokkaido. Could it be that his model predicted the amount of energy churning about in the Earth's crust around Tokyo more accurately than the data bears out, but for some reason not all of that energy was dissipated in the Tokyo earthquake, and went on to contribute to the large magnitude of the event at Hokkaido?

This is similar to what I'm thinking. Also, we have no idea what his method is. Geographical range, timing, and magnitude are all variables that surely would result in different degrees of precision and accuracy in any foreseeable predictive model. To me, the crude but simple chance of success indicated is striking. I am at least 100% more interested than before. This means my left eyebrow is raised at least 0.250 inches now. [:D]

[hypnagogue]

zooby, I agree that his method, if it's really valid, could use some refining (if applicable-- maybe his method is just an inherently crude measure). But assuming it wasn't a fluke, even a crude estimate of a high magnitude earthquake like this would be valuable, certainly better than nothing. So in the future, to be more accurate he might have to warn not just Tokyo but all of Japan-- there's obvious practical problems with this, eg Japan residents wouldn't know of a safe place within Japan to hide out for a while, and most areas would suffer from anxiety and the cost of preparations for nothing. But preparations made in those areas that actually are struck could still ultimately save lives-- there could still be actual practical benefits.

[Ivan Seeking]

Some related info showing the location of the Japanese subduction zones:
http://atlas.geo.cornell.edu/education/instructor/topography/japan.html

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/bljapanseismap.htm

It seems that this could be a major subduction zone event; we will have to wait and see. If so, it would seem possible that certain predictive indicators might have to be viewed in a broader geographical context than was indicated.

[kleinma]

perhaps the first quake he predicted was accurate, and the following quake was a result of the initial one...

regardless, they should look into his methods and see about possibly improving on them, because his ways for detecting quakes obviously shows he is doing something right.

I think the fact that his predictions were not 100% accurate is minor compaired to the fact that he obviously has something going on for himself

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by hypnagogue


By the way hypnagogue, thanks much for your kind words and your vote.[:)]

[hypnagogue]

No problem my man, you earned it. A board like this absolutely needs a solid and composed voice for open-mindedness, otherwise it just stagnates into arguments of dogma.

[hypnagogue]

Plus, the articles you post are thought provoking and sometimes provide a member with a pretty new avatar. [:D]

[Ivan Seeking]

The man who predicted last week's quake has gained sudden credibility, writes Shane Green in Tokyo.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/26/1064083188094.html

Well, maybe...

[Ivan Seeking]

Magnitude 8.3 HOKKAIDO, JAPAN REGION
2003 September 25 19:50:06 UTC
Preliminary Earthquake Report
U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center
World Data Center for Seismology, Denver



Magnitude 8.3
Date-Time Thursday, September 25, 2003 at 19:50:06 (UTC) - Coordinated Universal Time
Friday, September 26, 2003 at 04:50:06 AM local time at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location 41.83N 143.83E
Depth 33.0 kilometers
Region HOKKAIDO, JAPAN REGION
Reference 135 km (85 miles) SSW of Kushiro, Hokkaido, Japan
245 km (150 miles) NE of Hachinohe, Honshu, Japan
245 km (155 miles) SSE of Asahikawa, Hokkaido, Japan
770 km (480 miles) NNE of TOKYO, Japan

Location Quality Error estimate: horizontal +/- 5.7 km; depth fixed by location program
Location Quality
Parameters Nst=199, Nph=199, Dmin=575.6 km, Rmss=0.84 sec, Erho=5.7 km, Erzz=0 km, Gp=34.2 degrees
Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Remarks At least 400 people injured, extensive damage, landslides and power outages occurred and many roads damaged in southeastern Hokkaido. A tsunami generated with an estimated wave height of 1.0 meter along the southeastern coast of Hokkaido. Felt strongly in much of Hokkaido. Also felt in northern and much of central Honshu as far south as Tokyo. Recorded (6L JMA) in southern Hokkaido; (5U JMA) in parts of eastern Hokkaido; (5L JMA) in central Hokkaido; (4JMA) in parts of Hokkaido and northern Honshu; (3 JMA) in southern Iwate, Akita, Miyagi, Yamagata and northern Fukushima; (2 JMA) in southern Fukushima, northern Niigata, eastern Tochigi, Ibaraki, Saitama, Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa, eastern Shizuoka and eastern Yamanashi; (1 JMA) in eastern Gumma and parts of Nagano Prefectures. Also recorded (1 JMA) on Miyake-jima and Hachijo-jima.


Tectonic Summary
The preliminary location and focal-mechanism of this earthquake imply that it occurred as the result of thrust-faulting on the plate interface between the overriding North American plate (which extends into the northeast corner of the Eurasian landmass) and the subducting Pacific plate. The Pacific plate is moving west-northwest at a rate of about 8.2 cm per year relative to the North American plate. In addition to experiencing great thrust earthquakes that originate on the interface between the plates, eastern Hokkaido experiences great earthquakes that originate from the interior of subducted Pacific plate. The earthquakes of March 4, 1952, and May 16, 1968 (cited below) were interface-thrust earthquakes, whereas the earthquake of January 15, 1993 (cited below) occurred within the interior of the subducted Pacific plate. The recent earthquake appears to have involved rupture of the same section of the plate interface that ruptured in 1952.

Magnitude 8 and greater earthquakes are capable of devastating large areas. The shallow September 25 Hokkaido earthquake occurred about 60 km offshore. If the earthquake had occurred directly beneath a populated region, damage would have been more severe.

Previous Deadly Earthquakes in this Region
Date UTC Magnitude Fatalities Damage
1952 March 4 8.6 31 31 killed, 72 injured; 713 houses destroyed, 5,980 damaged. 28 killed and warehouses destroyed at Kushiro. 3 killed and 309 houses destroyed at Kiratapu. 1,000 houses destroyed or damaged at Shiranuka and 400 schools collapsed at Sapporo. 10-foot tsunami.
1968 May 16 7.9 48 Damage estimate at 25 million USD.
1993 January 15 7.6 2 614 injured and substantial damage (VI JMA) at Kushiro, Hokkaido and Hachinohe, Honshu. Felt (V JMA) at Hiroo, Nemuro, Obihiro, Otaru and Urakawa; (IV JMA) at Hakodate and Tomakomai; (III JMA) at Sapporo, Hokkaido. Felt (IV JMA) at Aomori and Morioka; (III JMA) at Akita, Fukushima, Sendai, Tokyo and Yokohama, Honshu. Also felt (VII) on Shikotan and (VI) at Kurilsk, Kuril Islands. Landslides and subsidence occurred in the epicentral area.

The last great earthquake (magnitude 8 or greater) in the world was a magnitude 8.4 that occurred on June 23, 2001, near the coast of Peru. This earthquake killed at least 75, including 26 killed by the associated tsunami.

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_zdap.html

[Ivan Seeking]

The preliminary location and focal-mechanism of this earthquake imply that it occurred as the result of thrust-faulting on the plate interface between the overriding North American plate (which extends into the northeast corner of the Eurasian landmass) and the subducting Pacific plate.

Since this appears to be a subduction zone event, it would seem reasonable that local faults played little to no role in this quake. I tend to think this guy might be on to something.

[Nereid]

Aren't we missing at least two rather important considerations?

1) Did this guy make public, ahead of time, ALL his predictions? If so, we can assess his track record, by making sure we match (or not) his predictions against actual earthquakes, and vice versa. If not, then the Nereid earthquake prediction method* is far superior.

2) How many other people have been making predictions of Japanese earthquakes? Where are their predictions? In the population of Japanese earthquake predictions, what are the chances of one of them coming as close as this?

*I have a computer program which randomly generates a magnitude-time-location. I print two copies, put one in an envelope, seal it, and write today's date on the envelope together with the other copy stuck on with stickytape. I repeat. My filing cabinet is overflowing, but every time there is an earthquake, I can assure you that I can produce an unopened envelope with a prediction that is close to what just happened!

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Nereid
Aren't we missing at least two rather important considerations?

1) Did this guy make public, ahead of time, ALL his predictions? If so, we can assess his track record, by making sure we match (or not) his predictions against actual earthquakes, and vice versa. If not, then the Nereid earthquake prediction method* is far superior.

2) How many other people have been making predictions of Japanese earthquakes? Where are their predictions? In the population of Japanese earthquake predictions, what are the chances of one of them coming as close as this?

*I have a computer program which randomly generates a magnitude-time-location. I print two copies, put one in an envelope, seal it, and write today's date on the envelope together with the other copy stuck on with stickytape. I repeat. My filing cabinet is overflowing, but every time there is an earthquake, I can assure you that I can produce an unopened envelope with a prediction that is close to what just happened!

Go to the first post in this thread.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Nereid
2) How many other people have been making predictions of Japanese earthquakes? Where are their predictions? In the population of Japanese earthquake predictions, what are the chances of one of them coming as close as this?

~1:600. One potential difference between this claim and others is that he claims to be using methods that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Also, since quakes >= mag 7 are rare, we don't find many predictions of quakes this size since you will most likely be wrong. Still, If I predict a mag 7 or greater anywhere in the world within 1 week, I have about a 40% chance of being right. To predict a quake in one particular place like Japan narrows the odds quite a bit. Of course, my chances of correctly randomly predicting a quake in the central US are much worse than getting one correct, just by chance, in California for example. But, the odds for a large quake were estimated using the history of quakes in Japan.

[Ivan Seeking]

Please continue this discussion in the geology forum. To me, it seems that a critique of his methods is purely a scientific matter. If we should find a [scientific] credibility problem with this amateur astronomer, I will reopen this thread. This is not meant to imply that this quake was anything other than coincidental.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=74904#post74904