Astronomer Predicts Major Earthquake for Japan

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a prediction made by a Japanese researcher regarding a major earthquake expected to hit Tokyo, with a focus on the validity and implications of such predictions. Participants explore the accuracy of the prediction, the occurrence of a smaller earthquake, and the potential influence of external factors like a typhoon on seismic activity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the predicted earthquake of magnitude 7.0 did not occur, as a smaller 5.5 magnitude quake was recorded instead, raising questions about the reliability of the prediction.
  • Others argue that predicting earthquakes is inherently uncertain, comparing it to flipping a coin, suggesting that even a minor quake does not validate the prediction.
  • A participant mentions that the odds of predicting any earthquake of magnitude 7.0 within a week might be around 1:600, indicating skepticism about the prediction's accuracy.
  • There is a discussion about whether external factors, such as a typhoon, could have influenced the magnitude of the earthquake, with some proposing that changes in barometric pressure or water weight might affect tectonic plate movements.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in calculating the energy difference between magnitudes, suggesting that the margin of error is significantly larger than initially thought.
  • Several participants engage in light-hearted banter regarding the prediction and its implications, reflecting a mix of skepticism and humor about the situation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the accuracy of the earthquake prediction, with multiple competing views on the significance of the smaller quake and the potential influence of external factors. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the validity of the prediction and the role of the typhoon.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of earthquake prediction and the complexities involved in measuring seismic activity. There is also a recognition of the nonlinear nature of the Richter scale in relation to energy release.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,213
Reaction score
2,660
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
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!"
 
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.
 
Tsunami,

Your link has too many https.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
So, would a 5.5 magnitude earthquake AND a typhoon hitting at the same time be fairly equivalent of a 7 magnitude earthquake?
 
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.
 
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"! :wink:
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • #11
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. Ivan - you're a little STRANGE!:wink: But then, I do like strange...

Personally, I'm going to give it a 7 since it was REALLY a double-whammy. Let's give that scientist a round of applause and add a Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award (anyone remember those?)!
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
"...my left eyebrow gets raised exactly 0.125".
Would this be millimeters or
thousandths?
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Tsunami
Ivan - you're a little STRANGE!:wink:

Keep it up and I'll turn your fish into a guppy.
 
  • #14
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.

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

Primitives...hah!
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Keep it up and I'll turn your fish into a guppy.
Yeah. I'm shakin' in my fins.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Tsunami
Yeah. I'm shakin' in my fins.


Not bad Tsunami! I rate that as a seven head funny. No wonder you're up for chief comedian.
 
  • #17
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.
 
  • #18
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! ) but, would it be possible that the presence of the typhoon kept the magnitude down to a 5.5 instead of the predicted 7?
 
  • #19
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%.
 
  • #20
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
a lot 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.
 
  • #21
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 )
 
  • #22
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Your typhoon would be shifting
a lot 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.
 
  • #24
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
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?
 
  • #26
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.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Where do I write to get my check?
Any where you want! Just make it out TO ME!
 
  • #28
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Where do I write to get my check?

USGS. Tell them that Ivan said it's OK.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
USGS. Tell them that Ivan said it's OK.
USGS - AKA Tsunami!
 
  • #30
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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

M7.5 Earthquake, near Anamizu, W Japan
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Mag 6.7 earthquake near Tomakomai, Hokkaido, Japan
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Two Mag 6.0 earthquakes off NE coast, Iwate, Japan
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
6.7 Mag Earthquake near Makurazaki, Japan (E. China Sea)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Fukushima Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Fukushima part 2
  • · Replies 2K ·
60
Replies
2K
Views
459K
Undergrad Japan Nuclear Plant: World's Biggest May Be on Fault
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K