Earthquake prediction

Earthquake prediction "is usually defined as the specification of the time, location, and magnitude of a future earthquake within stated limits", and particularly "the determination of parameters for the next strong earthquake to occur in a region." This can be distinguished from earthquake forecasting, which is the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard, including the frequency and magnitude of damaging earthquakes, in a given area over periods of years or decades. It can be further distinguished from real-time earthquake warning systems, which, upon detection of a severe earthquake, can provide a few seconds of warning to neighboring regions.

To be useful, an earthquake prediction must be precise enough to warrant the cost of increased precautions, including the disruption of ordinary activities and commerce, and timely enough that preparations can be made. Predictions must also be reliable, as false alarms and canceled alarms are economically costly and seriously undermine confidence in, and thereby the effectiveness of, any kind of warning.

With over 13,000 earthquakes around the world each year having a magnitude of 4.0 or greater, trivial success in earthquake prediction is easily obtained using sufficiently broad parameters of time, location, or magnitude. However, such trivial "successful predictions" are not useful. Useful prediction of large (damaging) earthquakes in a timely manner is generally notable for its absence, the few claims of success being controversial. Extensive searches have reported many possible earthquake precursors, but "none have been found to be reliable."

In the 1970s, scientists were optimistic that a practical method for predicting earthquakes would soon be found, but by the 1990s continuing failure led many to question whether it was even possible. While some scientists still hold that, given enough resources, prediction might be possible, many others maintain that earthquake prediction is inherently impossible.

The problem of earthquake prediction

"Only fools and charlatans predict earthquakes."

— Charles Richter (famous seismologist)

Definition and validity

The prediction of earthquakes is hampered by two problems: the definition of "prediction", and the definition of "earthquake". This might seem trivial, especially the latter: it would seem that the ground shakes, or it doesn't. However, in seismically active areas the ground frequently shakes enough to be consistently detected by seismometers, but not hard enough for most people to notice.

Approx. # of quakes per year, globally

Mag.	Class.	#
M = 8	Great	1
M = 7	Major	15
M = 6	Large	134
M = 5	Moderate	1319
M = 4	Small	~13,000

An earthquake with a Richter magnitude scale of 8 or larger can cause extreme shaking of the earth's crust. There is, on average, about one such earthquake somewhere in the world each year (the four M ≥ 8 quakes in 2007 being exceptional), and there are 15 or so "major" M ≥ 7 quakes per year (but 23 in 2010). The USGS reckons another 134 "large" quakes above M 6, and about 1300 quakes in the "moderate" range, from M 5 to M 5.9 ("felt by all, many frightened"). In the M 4 to M 4.9 range – "small" – it is estimated that there are 13,000 quakes annually. Quakes less than M 4 – noticeable to only a few persons, and possibly not recognized as an earthquake – number over a million each year, or roughly 150 per hour.

There have been many exaggerated claims of success when it comes to earthquake predictions. To be meaningful, an earthquake prediction must be properly qualified. This includes unambiguous specification of time, location, and magnitude. These should be stated either as ranges ("windows", error bounds), or with a weighting function, or with some definitive inclusion rule provided, so that there is no issue as to whether any particular event is, or is not, included in the prediction, so a prediction cannot be retrospectively expanded to include an earthquake it would have otherwise missed, or contracted to appear more significant than it really was. To show that a prediction is not post-selected ("cherry-picked") from a number of generally unsuccessful and unrevealed predictions, it must be published in a manner that reveals all attempts at prediction, failures as well as successes.

To be deemed "scientific" a prediction should be based on some kind of natural process, and derived in a manner such that any other researcher using the same method would obtain the same result. Scientists are also expected to state their confidence in the reliability of the prediction, and their estimate of an earthquake happening in the prediction window by chance (discussed below).

2x2 contingency table with four possible outcomes.

A prediction ("alarm") can be made, or not, and an earthquake may occur, or not; these basic possibilities are shown in the contingency table at right. Once the outcomes are tabulated, performance measures can be calculated. E.g., the success rate is the proportion of all predictions which were successful [SR = a/(a+b)], while the Hit rate (or alarm rate) is the proportion of all events which were successfully predicted [H = a/(a+c)]. The false alarm ratio is the proportion of predictions which are false [FAR = b/(a+b)]. This is not to be confused with the false alarm rate, which is the proportion of all non-events incorrectly "alarmed" [F = b/(b+d)].

These performance measures can be manipulated by adjusting the level (threshold) at which a prediction (alarm) is made. Raising the level improves the success rate (fewer predictions, but a greater percentage of them are successful), but also results in more missed earthquakes (type II errors). Lowering the level improves the hit rate (more likely to catch an earthquake), but also results in more false alarms (type I errors). There is no inherently "right" level; the acceptable trade-off between missed quakes and false alarms depends on the societal valuation of these outcomes. As either the success rate or the hit rate can be improved at the expense of the other, both should be considered when evaluating a prediction method.

Significance

"All predictions of the future can be to some extent successful by chance."

— Mulargia & Gasperini 1992

While the actual occurrence – or non-occurrence – of a specified earthquake might seem sufficient for evaluating a prediction, there is always a chance, however small, of getting lucky. A prediction is significant only to the extent it is successful beyond chance. Therefore statistical methods are used to determine the probability that an earthquake such as is predicted would happen anyway (the null hypothesis). The predictions are then evaluated by testing whether they correlate with actual earthquakes better than the null hypothesis.

A null hypothesis must be chosen carefully. E.g., for some types of studies it is reasonable to compare observations against a null hypothesis of random occurrence. Can the observed distribution of earthquakes be distinguished from random? In many instances, however, earthquake occurrence is clearly not random, with clustering in both space and time. In southern California it has been estimated that about 6% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km." It has been estimated that in central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 30 km and 48 hours. While such statistics are not satisfactory for purposes of prediction (in giving ten to twenty false alarms for each successful prediction) they will skew the results of any analysis that assumes a random (Poisson) distribution of earthquakes. It has been shown that a "naive" method based solely on clustering can successfully predict about 5% of earthquakes; slightly better than pure chance.

Use of an incorrect null hypothesis is only one way in which many studies claiming a low but significant level of success in predicting earthquakes are statistically flawed. To avoid these and other problems the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) has developed a means of rigorously and consistently conducting and evaluating earthquake prediction experiments whereby scientists can submit a prediction method which is then prospectively evaluated against an authoritative catalog of observed earthquakes.

Consequences

Predictions of major earthquakes by those claiming psychic premonitions are commonplace, lack credibility, and have few serious consequences. Predictions by those with scientific or even pseudo-scientific qualifications often cause serious social and economic disruption, and pose a great quandary for both scientists and public officials.

Some possibly predictive precursors – such as a sudden increase in seismicity – may give only a few hours of warning, allowing little deliberation and consultation with others. As the purpose of short-term prediction is to enable emergency measures to reduce death and destruction, failure to give warning of a major earthquake, that does occur, or at least an adequate evaluation of the hazard, can result in legal liability, or even political purging. But warning of an earthquake that does not occur – crying "wolf!" – also incurs a cost: not only the cost of the emergency measures themselves, but of major civil and economic disruption. Geller describes the arrangements made in Japan:

... if ‘anomalous data’ are recorded, an ‘Earthquake Assessment Committee’ (EAC) will be convened within two hours. Within 30 minutes the EAC must make a black (alarm) or white (no alarm) recommendation. The former would cause the Prime Minister to issue the alarm, which would shut down all expressways, bullet trains, schools, factories, etc., in an area covering seven prefectures. Tokyo would also be effectively shut down.

The cost of such measures has been estimated at US$7 billion per day (circa 1980). False alarms (including alarms that are cancelled) also undermine the credibility, and thereby the effectiveness, of future warnings.

The quandary is that even when increased seismicity suggests that an earthquake is imminent in a given area, there is no way of getting definite knowledge of whether there will be a larger quake of any given magnitude, or when. If scientists and the civil authorities knew that (for instance) in some area there was an 80% chance of a large (M > 6) earthquake in a matter of a day or two, they would see a clear benefit in issuing an alarm. But is it worth the cost of civil and economic disruption and possible panic, and the corrosive effect a false alarm has on future alarms, if the chance is only 5%?

The Dilemma: To Alarm? or Not to Alarm?
In statistical theory "The Bar" is more formally the decision criterion for selecting which option (hypothesis) to adopt.

Some of the trade-offs can be seen in the chart at right. By lowering "The Bar" – the threshold at which an alarm is issued – the chances of being caught off-guard are reduced, and the potential loss of life and property may be mitigated. But this also increases the number, and cost, of false alarms. If the threshold is set for an estimated one chance in ten of a quake, the other nine chances will be false alarms. Such a high rate of false alarms is a public policy issue itself, which has not yet been resolved.

To avoid an all-or-nothing response the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (CEPEC) has used a notification protocol where short-term advisories of possible major earthquakes (M ≥ 7) can be provided at four levels of probability.

Prediction methods

Earthquake prediction (a branch of seismology) is an immature science in that it cannot predict from first principles the location, date, and magnitude of an earthquake. Research in this area therefore seeks to empirically derive a reliable basis for predictions in either distinct precursors, or some kind of trend or pattern.

Precursors

"... there is growing empirical evidence that precursors exist."

— Frank Evison, 1999

"The search for diagnostic precursors has thus far been unsuccessful."

— ICEF, 2011

An earthquake precursor is an anomalous phenomenon that might give effective warning of the imminence or severity of an impending earthquake in a given area. Reports of premonitory phenomena – though generally recognized as such only after the event – number in the thousands, some dating back to antiquity. In the scientific literature there have been around 400 reports of possible precursors, of roughly twenty different types, running the gamut "from aeronomy to zoology". But "[e]xtensive searches have failed to find reliable precursors."

When (in the early 1990s) the IASPEI solicited nominations for a "Preliminary List of Significant Precursors", 40 nominations were made; five were selected as possible significant precursors, with two of those based on a single observation each.

After a critical review of the scientific literature the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) concluded in 2011 there was "considerable room for methodological improvements in this type of research." Particularly:

In many cases of purported precursory behavior, the reported observational data are contradictory and unsuitable for a rigorous statistical evaluation. One related problem is a bias towards publishing positive rather than negative results, so that the rate of false negatives (earthquake but no precursory signal) cannot be ascertained. A second is the frequent lack of baseline studies that establish noise levels in the observational time series.

Although none of the following precursors are convincingly successful, they do illustrate the various kinds of phenomena which have been examined, as well as the optimism that generally attaches to any report of a possible precursor.

Animal behavior

Unlike other possibly precursory phenomena, animal behavior can be observed with the ordinary senses by anyone. Consequently, there are many anecdotal accounts of anamolous animal behavior associated with earthquakes. One of the earliest is from the Roman writer Claudius Aelianus concerning the destruction of the Greek city of Helike by earthquake and tsunami in 373 BC:

For five days before Helike disappeared, all the mice and martens and snakes and centipedes and beetles and every other creature of that kind in the city left in a body by the road that leads to Keryneia. ... But after these creatures had departed, an earthquake occurred in the night; the city subsided; an immense wave flooded and Helike disappeared....

Aelianus wrote this in the Second Century, some 500 years after the event, so his somewhat fantastical account is necessarily about the myth that developed, not an eyewitness account.

Popular belief that animals can anticipate impending earthquakes is fed by uncritical reporting. E.g., following the M 5.8 2011 Virginia earthquake a report on activity among great apes at the National Zoo was titled "Sixth Sense? Zoo Animals Sensed Quake Early". However, it appears that most of that behavior was not "early", but co-seismic, being typical alarm responses to the quake itself.

Similarly, Stanley Coren, a prominent Canadian researcher, psychology professor and self-described former skeptic reported on dogs and earthquakes at a November 2006 Psychonomic Society meeting. Years earlier, he reported, while studying Seasonal Affective Disorder in dogs, he happened to capture data showing that pet owners reported on the day of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake that ~ half the ~200 dogs monitored had significantly higher activity levels and ~half had increased anxiety the 24 hours before. The professor did not report where the dogs were, or any control data. Again, the time element was crucial, and the pet owners reports came in the form of emails (which are time-stamped when written, sent, and received) but he did not consider that reports from dog owners who had just experienced the earthquake would likely be skewed, or even that many reports would have described behavior due to the main earthquake itself. The findings are not found in any peer-reviewed publication. The psychology professor reported that data regarding hearing impairments, ear type and separation "hint that animals are responding to an auditory cue" of high frequency. The findings were reported at a November 2006 Psychonomic Society meeting. A reviewer described the report as 'definitely intriguing' evidence while it was described as "real scientific data linking strange animal behaviour with earthquakes" in New Scientist article "Beastly powers; Surely it is too much to believe that animals can predict earthquakes when we haven't cracked it ourselves?" Coren wrote again of the 11-year-old results in his weekly "Canine Corner" newsblog entry of 9 May 2012.

In cases where animals display unusual behavior some tens of seconds prior to a quake, it has been suggested they are responding to the P-wave. These travel through the ground about twice as fast as the S-waves that do the serious shaking. They predict not the earthquake itself — that has already happened — but only the imminent arrival of the more destructive S-waves.

It has also been suggested that unusual behavior hours or even days beforehand could be triggered by foreshock activity at magnitudes that most people don't notice. Another confounding factor of popular accounts of unusual phenomena is skewing due to "flashbulb memories": otherwise unremarkable details become more memorable and more significant when associated with an emotionally powerful event such as an earthquake. A study that attempted to control for these kinds of factors found an increase in unusual animal behavior (possibly triggered by foreshocks) in one case, but not in four other cases of seemingly similar earthquakes.

Scientific study of anomalous animal behavior — distinguished from compendiums of anecdotal reports — is limited because of the difficulty of performing an experiment, let alone repeating one. Yet there was a fortuitous case in 1992: some biologists just happened to be studying the behavior of an ant colony when the Landers earthquake struck just 100 km (60 mi) away. Despite severe ground shaking, the ants seemed oblivious to the quake itself, as well as to any precursors.

In an earlier study, researchers monitored rodent colonies at two seismically active locations in California. In the course of the study there were several moderate quakes, and there was anomalous behavior. However, the latter was coincident with other factors; no connection with an earthquake could be shown.

In the 1980s there was an intriguing theory that spikes in lost pet advertisements in the San Jose Mercury News portended an increased chance of an earthquake within 70 miles of downtown San Jose. This was a very testable hypothesis, being based on quantifiable, objective, publicly available data, and it was tested by Schaal (1988) – who found no correlation. Another study looked at reports of anomalous animal behavior reported to a hotline prior to an earthquake, but found no significant increase that could be correlated with a subsequent earthquake.

After reviewing the scientific literature the ICEF concluded in 2011 that

there is no credible scientific evidence that animals display behaviors indicative of earthquake-related environmental disturbances that are unobservable by the physical and chemical sensor systems available to earthquake scientists.

Changes in Vp/Vs

V_p is the symbol for the velocity of a seismic "P" (primary or pressure) wave passing through rock, while V_s is the symbol for the velocity of the "S" (secondary or shear) wave. Small-scale laboratory experiments have shown that the ratio of these two velocities – represented as V_p/V_s – changes when rock is near the point of fracturing. In the 1970s it was considered a significant success and likely breakthrough when Russian seismologists reported observing such changes in the region of a subsequent earthquake. This effect, as well as other possible precursors, has been attributed to dilatancy, where rock stressed to near its breaking point expands (dilates) slightly.

Study of this phenomena near Blue Mountain Lake (New York) led to a successful prediction in 1973. However, additional successes there have not followed, and it has been suggested that the prediction was only a fluke. A V_p/V_s anomaly was the basis of Whitcomb's 1976 prediction of a M 5.5 to 6.5 earthquake near Los Angeles, which failed to occur. Other studies relying on quarry blasts (more precise, and repeatable) found no such variations; and an alternative explanation has been reported for such variations as have been observed. Geller (1997) noted that reports of significant velocity changes have ceased since about 1980.

Radon emissions

Most rock contains small amounts of gases that can be isotopically distinguished from the normal atmospheric gases. There are reports of spikes in the concentrations of such gases prior to a major earthquake; this has been attributed to release due to pre-seismic stress or fracturing of the rock. One of these gases is radon, produced by radioactive decay of the trace amounts of uranium present in most rock.

Radon is attractive as a potential earthquake predictor because being radioactive it is easily detected, and its short half-life (3.8 days) makes it sensitive to short-term fluctuations. A 2009 review found 125 reports of changes in radon emissions prior to 86 earthquakes since 1966. But as the ICEF found in its review, the earthquakes with which these changes are supposedly linked were up to a thousand kilometers away, months later, and at all magnitudes. In some cases the anomalies were observed at a distant site, but not at closer sites. The ICEF found "no significant correlation". Another review concluded that in some cases changes in radon levels preceded an earthquake, but a correlation is not yet firmly established.

Electro-magnetic variations

Various attempts have been made to identify possible pre-seismic indications in electrical, electric-resistive, or magnetic phenomena. The most touted, and most criticized, is the VAN method of professors P. Varotsos, K. Alexopoulos and K. Nomicos – "VAN" – of the National and Capodistrian University of Athens. In a 1981 paper they claimed that by measuring geoelectric voltages – what they called "seismic electric signals" (SES) – they could predict earthquakes of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to 7 hours beforehand. Later the claim changed to being able to predict earthquakes larger than magnitude 5, within 100 km of the epicentral location, within 0.7 units of magnitude, and in a 2-hour to 11-day time window. Subsequent papers claimed a series of successful predictions. Despite these claims, the VAN group generated intense public criticism in the 1980s by issuing telegram warnings, a large number of which were false alarms.

Objections have been raised that the physics of the claimed process is not possible. For example, none of the earthquakes which VAN claimed were preceded by SES generated SES themselves, as would have been expected. Further, an analysis of the wave propagation properties of SES in the Earth’s crust showed that it would have been impossible for signals with the amplitude reported by VAN to have been generated by small earthquakes and transmitted over the several hundred kilometers distances from the epicenter to the monitoring station.

Several authors have pointed out that VAN’s publications are characterized by not accounting for (identifying and eliminating) the possible sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI) to their measuring system. Taken as a whole, the VAN method has been criticized as lacking consistency while doing statistical testing of the validity of their hypotheses. In particular, there has been some contention over which catalog of seismic events to use in vetting predictions. This catalog switching can be used to conclude that, for example, of 22 claims of successful prediction by VAN 74% were false, 9% correlated at random and for 14% the correlation was uncertain.

In 1996 the journal Geophysical Research Letters presented a debate on the statistical significance of the VAN method; the majority of reviewers found the methods of VAN to be flawed, and the claims of successful predictions statistically insignificant. In 2001, the VAN method was modified to include time series analysis, and Springer published an overview in 2011. This updated method has not been critiqued or verified independently yet.

Further information: VAN method

After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake occurred, a group led by Antony C. Fraser-Smith of Stanford University reported that the event was preceded by disturbances in background magnetic field noise as measured by a sensor placed in Corralitos, California, about 4.5 miles (7 km) from the epicenter. From 5 October, they reported a substantial increase in noise was measured in the frequency range 0.01–10 Hz. The measurement instrument was a single-axis search-coil magnetometer that was being used for low frequency research. Precursory increases of noise apparently started a few days before the earthquake, with noise in the range .01–.5 Hz rising to exceptionally high levels about three hours before the earthquake. Though this pattern gave scientists new ideas for research into potential precursors to earthquakes, and the Fraser-Smith et al. report remains one of the most frequently cited examples of a specific earthquake precursor, more recent studies have cast doubt on the connection, attributing the Corralitos signals to either unrelated magnetic disturbance or, even more simply, to sensor-system malfunction.

Satellite-based detection of ionospheric and electromagnetic precursors

In addition to terrestrial electromagnetic variations, earthquake activity is correlated with some electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena. Notably, ionospheric disturbances producing electromagnetic signals precede some major seismic events by a few hours to days. These signal anomalies are small in magnitude and therefore difficult to study. The French satellite Demeter was launched in 2004 with the intent of detecting earthquake precursory and co-seismic electromagnetic signals. In 2016, China plans to launch a polar-orbiting satellite equipped with a search-coil magnetometer, electric field detector, energetic particle sensors, and a Langmiur probe and plasma analyzer. "Through these data, we try to understand what natural warnings, such as changes in electromagnetic signals, are indicating prior to," said a spokesman for the project.

Trends

Instead of watching for anomalous phenomena that might be precursory signs of an impending earthquake, other approaches to predicting earthquakes look for trends or patterns that lead to an earthquake. As these trends may be complex and involve many variables, advanced statistical techniques are often needed to understand them, therefore these are sometimes called statistical methods. These approaches also tend to be more probabilistic, and to have larger time periods, and so merge into earthquake forecasting.

Elastic rebound

Even the stiffest of rock is not perfectly rigid. Given a large enough force (such as between two immense tectonic plates moving past each other) the earth's crust will bend or deform. What happens next is described by the elastic rebound theory of Reid (1910): eventually the deformation (strain) becomes great enough that something breaks, usually at an existing fault. Slippage along the break (an earthquake) allows the rock on each side to rebound to a less deformed state, but now offset, and thereby accommodating inter-plate motion. In the process energy is released in various forms, including seismic waves. The cycle of tectonic force being accumulated in elastic deformation and released in a sudden rebound is then repeated. As the displacement from a single earthquake ranges from less than a meter to around 10 meters (for an M 8 quake), the demonstrated existence of large strike-slip displacements of hundreds of miles shows the existence of a long running earthquake cycle.

Characteristic earthquakes

The most studied earthquake faults (such as the Nankai megathrust, the Wasatch fault, and the San Andreas fault) appear to have distinct segments. The characteristic earthquake model postulates that earthquakes are generally constrained within these segments. As the lengths and other characteristics of the segments are fixed, earthquakes that rupture the entire fault should have similar characteristics. These include the maximum magnitude (which is limited by the length of the rupture), and the amount of accumulated strain needed to rupture the fault segment. In that the strain accumulates steadily, it seems a fair inference that seismic activity on a given segment should be dominated by earthquakes of similar characteristics that recur at somewhat regular intervals. For a given fault segment, identifying these characteristic earthquakes and timing their recurrence rate (or conversely return period) should therefore inform us when to expect the next rupture; this is the approach generally used in forecasting seismic hazard. Return periods are used for modeling rare events generally, such as cyclones and floods, and as forecasts simply posit that future frequency will be similar to observed frequency to date; however, the application to finer earthquake prediction and the characteristic earthquake model are specific to this case.

This is essentially the basis of the Parkfield prediction: fairly similar earthquakes in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966 suggested a pattern of breaks every 21.9 years, with a standard deviation of ±3.1 years. Extrapolation from the 1966 event led to a prediction of an earthquake around 1988, or before 1993 at the latest (at the 95% confidence interval). The appeal of such a method is in being derived entirely from the trend, which supposedly accounts for the unknown and possibly unknowable earthquake physics and fault parameters. However, in the Parkfield case the predicted earthquake did not occur until 2004, a decade late. This seriously undercuts the claim that earthquakes at Parkfield are quasi-periodic, and suggests they differ sufficiently in other respects to question whether they have distinct characteristics.

The failure of the Parkfield prediction has raised doubt as to the validity of the characteristic earthquake model itself. Some studies have questioned the various assumptions, including the key one that earthquakes are constrained within segments, and suggested that the "characteristic earthquakes" may be an artifact of selection bias and the shortness of seismological records (relative to earthquake cycles). Other studies have considered whether other factors need to be considered, such as the age of the fault. Whether earthquake ruptures are more generally constrained within a segment (as is often seen), or break past segment boundaries (also seen), has a direct bearing on the degree of earthquake hazard: earthquakes are larger where multiple segments break, but in relieving more strain they will happen less often.

Seismic gaps

At the contact where two tectonic plates slip past each other every section must eventually slip, as (in the long-term) none get left behind. But they do not all slip at the same time; different sections will be at different stages in the cycle of strain (deformation) accumulation and sudden rebound. In the seismic gap model the "next big quake" should be expected not in the segments where recent seismicity has relieved the strain, but in the intervening gaps where the unrelieved strain is the greatest. This model has an intuitive appeal; it is used in long-term forecasting, and was the basis of a series of circum-Pacific (Pacific Rim) forecasts in 1979 and 1989—1991.

Significant examples where part of a fault has slipped, and is then been followed in short or relatively short order by the rest of the fault slipping, are found in Nankai megathrust earthquakes, where a major earthquake in the central/east section (Tōnankai earthquake/Tōkai earthquake) has several times been followed by a major earthquake in the west section (Nankai earthquake); examples include the 1854 Ansei-Tōkai earthquake (C+D+E), followed the next day by 1854 Ansei-Nankai earthquake (A+B), and the 1944 Tōnankai earthquake (C+D), followed two years later by the 1946 Nankaidō earthquake; a similar pair is believed to have occurred three years apart in 1096 and 1099. [Citations are needed for this section.]

It has been asked: "How could such an obvious, intuitive model not be true?" Possibly because some of the underlying assumptions are not correct. A close examination suggests that "there may be no information in seismic gaps about the time of occurrence or the magnitude of the next large event in the region"; statistical tests of the circum-Pacific forecasts shows that the seismic gap model "did not forecast large earthquakes well". Another study concluded: "The hypothesis of increased of earthquake potential after a long quiet period can be rejected with a large confidence."

Seismicity patterns (M8, AMR)

Various heuristically derived algorithms have been developed for predicting earthquakes. Probably the most widely known is the M8 family of algorithms (including the RTP method) developed under the leadership of Vladimir Keilis-Borok. M8 issues a "Time of Increased Probability" (TIP) alarms for a large earthquake of a specified magnitude upon observing certain patterns of smaller earthquakes. TIPs generally cover large areas (up to a thousand kilometers across) for up to five years. Such large parameters have made M8 controversial, as it is hard to determine whether any hits that happen were skillfully predicted, or only the result of chance.

M8 gained considerable attention when the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes occurred within a TIP. But a widely publicized TIP for an M 6.4 quake in Southern California in 2004 was not fulfilled, nor two other lesser known TIPs. A deep study of the RTP method in 2008 found that out of some twenty alarms only two could be considered hits (and one of those had a 60% chance of happening anyway). It concluded that "RTP is not significantly different from a naïve method of guessing based on the historical rates seismicity."

Accelerating moment release (AMR, "moment" being a measurement of seismic energy), also known as time-to-failure analysis, or accelerating seismic moment release (ASMR), is based on observations that foreshock activity prior to a major earthquake not only increased, but increased at an exponential rate. That is: a plot of the cumulative number of foreshocks gets steeper just before the main shock.

Following formulation by Bowman et al. (1998) into a testable hypothesis and a number of positive reports, AMR seemed to have a promising future. This despite several problems, including not being detected for all locations and events, and the difficulty of projecting an accurate occurrence time when the tail end of the curve gets steep. But more rigorous testing has shown that apparent AMR trends likely result from how data fitting is done and failing to account for spatiotemporal clustering of earthquakes,; the AMR trends are statistically insignificant. Interest in AMR (as judged by the number of peer-reviewed papers) is reported to have fallen off since 2004.

Notable predictions

These are predictions, or claims of predictions, that are notable either scientifically or because of public notoriety, and claim a scientific or quasi-scientific basis, or invoke the authority of a scientist. To be judged successful a prediction must be published before the predicted event, and the event must occur exactly within the specified time, location, and magnitude parameters. As many predictions are held confidentially, or published in obscure locations, and become notable only when they are claimed, there may be some selection bias in that hits get more attention than misses.

1973: Blue Mountain Lake, USA

A team studying earthquake activity at Blue Mountain Lake (BML), New York, made a prediction on 1 August 1973, that "an earthquake of magnitude 2.5–3 would occur in a few days." And: "At 2310 UT on August 3, 1973, a magnitude 2.6 earthquake occurred at BML". According to the authors, this is the first time the approximate time, place, and size of an earthquake were successfully predicted in the United States.

It has been suggested that the pattern they observed may have been a statistical fluke. It seems significant that there has never been a second prediction from Blue Mountain Lake; this prediction now appears to be largely discounted.

Earthquake prediction ... appears to be on the verge of practical reality....

— Scholz, Sykes & Aggarwal 1973

1974: Hollister, USA

On the evening of 27 November 1974, Malcolm Johnston described to an informal group of earth scientists some data collected near Hollister, California, showing deformation of the earth's surface such as might portend an earthquake. Asked when this might happen colleague John H. Healy jested: "Maybe tomorrow." The timing could not have been better, as the next day (Thanksgiving) there was an M 5.2 earthquake near Hollister.

Though described as successful, this informal statement was not made as a prediction, and fell short as a prediction: it was indefinite in regards of time (maybe "tomorrow" — or maybe a decade later?) and magnitude. Yet this expectation was significant, as it was prompted by observation of two kinds of possible precursors (tilt and geomagnetic), and there was a sense that had they been able to process their data sooner they might have been able make a formal prediction. Later a third possible (although somewhat doubtful) precursor (a Vp/Vs variation) was discovered. That three possible precursors seemed to be in accord was considered "most encouraging" at the USGS. Coupled with the success at Blue Mountain Lake a year earlier and the reports from Haicheng six months later, this fostered much optimism among earth scientists in the late 1970s that short-term earthquake prediction would soon be attainable. This prompted a conference in 1975 to consider the public policy implications of earthquake forecasts in the United States.

1975: Haicheng, China

The M 7.3 Haicheng (China) earthquake of 4 February 1975 is the most widely cited "success" of earthquake prediction, and cited as such in several textbooks. The putative story is that study of seismic activity in the region lead the Chinese authorities to issue both a medium-term prediction in June 1974, and, following a number of foreshocks up to M 4.7 the previous day, a short-term prediction on 4 February that large earthquake might occur within one to two days. The political authorities (so the story goes) therefore ordered various measures taken, including enforced evacuation of homes, construction of "simple outdoor structures", and showing of movies out of doors. Although the quake, striking at 19:36, was powerful enough to destroy or badly damage about half of the homes, the "effective preventative measures taken" were said to have kept the death toll under 300. This in a population of about 1.6 million, where otherwise tens of thousands of fatalities might have been expected.

However, although a major earthquake certainly occurred, there has been some skepticism about this narrative of effective measures taken on the basis of a timely prediction. This was during the Cultural Revolution, when "belief in earthquake prediction was made an element of ideological orthodoxy that distinguished the true party liners from right wing deviationists" and record keeping was disordered, making it difficult to verify details of the claim, even as to whether there was an ordered evacuation. The method used for either the medium-term or short-term predictions (other than "Chairman Mao's revolutionary line") has not been specified. It has been suggested that the evacuation was spontaneous, following the strong (M 4.7) foreshock that occurred the day before.

Many of the missing details have been filled in by a 2006 report that had access to an extensive range of records. This study found that the predictions were flawed. "In particular, there was no official short-term prediction, although such a prediction was made by individual scientists." Also: "it was the foreshocks alone that triggered the final decisions of warning and evacuation". The light loss of life (which they set at 2,041) is attributed to a number of fortuitous circumstances, including earthquake education in the previous months (prompted by elevated seismic activity), local initiative, timing (occurring when people were neither working nor asleep), and local style of construction. The authors conclude that, while unsatisfactory as a prediction, "it was an attempt to predict a major earthquake that for the first time did not end up with practical failure."

Further information: 1975 Haicheng earthquake

"... routine announcement of reliable predictions may be possible within 10 years...."

— NAS Panel on Earthquake Prediction, 1976

1976: Southern California, USA (Whitcomb)

On 15 April 1976, Dr. James Whitcomb presented a scientific paper that found, based on changes in V_p/V_s (seismic wave velocities), an area northeast of Los Angeles along the San Andreas fault was "a candidate for intensified geophysical monitoring". He presented this not as a prediction that an earthquake would happen, but as a test of whether an earthquake would happen, as might be predicted on the basis of V_p/V_s. This distinction was generally lost; he was and has been held to have predicted an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 within 12 months.

The area identified by Whitcomb was quite large, and overlapped the area of the Palmdale Bulge, an apparent uplift (later discounted), which was causing some concern as a possible precursor of large earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Both the uplift and the changes in seismic velocities were predicted by the then current dilatancy theory, although Whitcomb emphasized his "hypothesis test" was based solely on the seismic velocities, and that he regarded that theory unproven.

Whitcomb subsequently withdrew the prediction, as continuing measurements no longer supported it. No earthquake of the specified magnitude occurred within the specified area or time.

1976–1978: South Carolina, USA

Towards the end of 1975 a number of minor earthquakes in an area of South Carolina (USA) not known for seismic activity were linked to the filling of a new reservoir (Lake Jocassee). Changes in the Vp/Vs ratios of the seismic waves were observed with these quakes. Based on additional Vp/Vs changes observed between 30 December 1975 and 7 January 1976 an earthquake prediction was made on 12 January. A magnitude 2.5 event occurred on 14 January 1976.

In the course of a three-year study a second prediction was claimed successful for an M 2.2 earthquake on 25 November 1977. However, this was only "two-thirds" successful (in respect of time and magnitude) as it occurred 7 km outside of the prediction location.

This study also evaluated other precursors, such as the M8 algorithm, which "predicted" neither of these two events, and changes in radon emissions, which showed possible correlation with other events, but not with these two.

"... at least 10 years, perhaps more, before widespread, reliable prediction of major earthquakes is achieved."

– Richard Kerr, 1978

1978: Izu-Oshima-Kinkai, Japan

On 14 January 1978 a swarm of intense microearthquakes prompted the Japan Meteorological Agence (JMA) to issue a statement suggesting that precautions for the prevention of damage might be considered. This was not a prediction, but coincidentally it was made just 90 minutes before the M 7.0 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai earthquake. This was subsequently, but incorrectly, claimed as successful prediction by Hamada (1991), and again by Roeloffs & Langbein (1994).

1978: Oaxaca, Mexico

Ohtake, Matumoto & Latham (1981) claimed:

The rupture zone and type of the 1978 Oaxaca: southern Mexico earthquake (M_s = 7.7) were successfully predicted based on the premonitory quiescence of seismic activity and the spatial and temporal relationships of recent large earthquakes.

However, the 1977 paper on which the claim is based said only that the "most probable" area "may [emphasis added] be the site of a future large earthquake"; a "firm prediction of the occurrence time is not attempted." This prediction is therefore incomplete, making its evaluation difficult.

After re-analysis of the region's seismicity Garza & Lomnitz (1979) concluded that though there was a slight decrease in seismicity, it was within the range of normal random variation, and did not amount to a seismic gap (the basis of the prediction). The validity of the prediction is further undermined by a report that the apparent lack of seismicity was due to a cataloging omission.

This prediction had an unusual twist in that its announcement by the University of Texas (UT) – for a destructive earthquake in Oaxaca at an undetermined date – came just ten days before the date given by another prediction for a destructive earthquake in Oaxaca. This other prediction had been made by a pair of Las Vegas gamblers; the local authorities had deemed it uncredible, and decided to ignore it. The announcement from a respectable institution unfortunately confirmed (for many people) the more specific prediction; this appears to have caused some panic. On the day of the amateur prediction there was an earthquake, but only a distinctly non-destructive M 4.2, which, as one mayor said, they get all the time.

" ... no general and definite way to successful earthquake prediction is clear."

— Ziro Suzuki, 1982

1981: Lima, Peru (Brady)

In 1976 Dr. Brian Brady, a physicist then at the U.S. Bureau of Mines, where he had studied how rocks fracture, "concluded a series of four articles on the theory of earthquakes with the deduction that strain building in the subduction zone [off-shore of Peru] might result in an earthquake of large magnitude within a period of seven to fourteen years from mid November 1974." In an internal memo written in June 1978 he narrowed the time window to "October to November, 1981", with a main shock in the range of 9.2±0.2. In a 1980 memo he was reported as specifying "mid-September 1980". This was discussed at a scientific seminar in San Juan, Argentina, in October 1980, where Brady's colleague, Dr. W. Spence, presented a paper. Brady and Spence then met with government officials from the U.S. and Peru on 29 October, and "forecast a series of large magnitude earthquakes in the second half of 1981." This prediction became widely known in Peru, following what the U.S. embassy described as "sensational first page headlines carried in most Lima dailies" on 26 January 1981.

On 27 January 1981, after reviewing the Brady-Spence prediction, the U.S. National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) announced it was "unconvinced of the scientific validity" of the prediction, and had been "shown nothing in the observed seismicity data, or in the theory insofar as presented, that lends substance to the predicted times, locations, and magnitudes of the earthquakes." It went on to say that while there was a probability of major earthquakes at the predicted times, that probability was low, and recommend that "the prediction not be given serious consideration."

Unfazed, Brady subsequently revised his forecast, stating there would be at least three earthquakes on or about 6 July 18 August and 24 September 1981, leading one USGS official to complain: "If he is allowed to continue to play this game ... he will eventually get a hit and his theories will be considered valid by many."

On 28 June (the date most widely taken as the date of the first predicted earthquake), it was reported that: "the population of Lima passed a quiet Sunday". The headline on one Peruvian newspaper: "NO PASO NADA" ("Nothing happens").

In July Brady formally withdrew his prediction on the grounds that prerequisite seismic activity had not occurred. Economic losses due to reduced tourism during this episode has been roughly estimated at one hundred million dollars.

"Recent advances ... make the routine prediction of earthquakes seem practicable."

— Stuart Crampin, 1987

1985–1993: Parkfield, USA (Bakun-Lindh)

The "Parkfield earthquake prediction experiment" was the most heralded scientific earthquake prediction ever. It was based on an observation that the Parkfield segment of the San Andreas Fault breaks regularly with a moderate earthquake of about M 6 every several decades: 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966. More particularly, Bakun & Lindh (1985) pointed out that, if the 1934 quake is excluded, these occur every 22 years, ±4.3 years. Counting from 1966, they predicted a 95% chance that the next earthquake would hit around 1988, or 1993 at the latest. The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) evaluated this, and concurred. The U.S. Geological Survey and the State of California therefore established one of the "most sophisticated and densest nets of monitoring instruments in the world", in part to identify any precursors when the quake came. Confidence was high enough that detailed plans were made for alerting emergency authorities if there were signs an earthquake was imminent. In the words of the Economist: "never has an ambush been more carefully laid for such an event."

1993 came, and passed, without fulfillment. Eventually there was an M 6.0 earthquake, on 28 September 2004, but without forewarning or obvious precursors. While the experiment in catching an earthquake is considered by many scientists to have been successful, the prediction was unsuccessful in that the eventual event was a decade late.

Further information: Parkfield earthquake

1987–1995: Greece (VAN)

Professors P. Varotsos, K. Alexopoulos and K. Nomicos – "VAN" – claimed in a 1981 paper an ability to predict M ≥ 2.6 earthquakes within 80 km of their observatory (in Greece) approximately seven hours beforehand, by measurements of 'seismic electric signals'. In 1996 Varotsos and other colleagues claimed to have predicted impending earthquakes within windows of several weeks, 100–120 km, and ±0.7 of the magnitude.

The VAN predictions have been severely criticised on various grounds, including being geophysically implausible, "vague and ambiguous", failing to satisfy prediction criteria, and retroactive adjustment of parameters. A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters, more likely a lucky coincidence than a "success". In the end the VAN predictions not only fail to do better than chance, but show "a much better association with the events which occurred before them."

1989: Loma Prieta, USA

On 17 October 1989, the Mw 6.9 (Ms 7.1) Loma Prieta ("World Series") earthquake (epicenter in the Santa Cruz Mountains northwest of San Juan Bautista, California) caused significant damage in the San Francisco Bay area of California. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reportedly claimed, twelve hours after the event, that it had "forecast" this earthquake in a report the previous year. USGS staff subsequently claimed this quake had been "anticipated"; various other claims of prediction have also been made.

Harris (1998) reviewed 18 papers (with 26 forecasts) dating from 1910 "that variously offer or relate to scientific forecasts of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake." (Forecast is often limited to a probabilistic estimate of an earthquake happening over some time period, distinguished from a more specific prediction. In this case this distinction is not made.) None of these forecasts can be rigorously tested due to lack of specificity, and where a forecast does bracket time and location it is because of such a broad window (e.g., covering the greater part of California for five years) as to lose any value as a prediction. Predictions that came close (but given a probability of only 30%) had ten- or twenty-year windows.

Of the several prediction methods used perhaps the most debated was the M8 algorithm used by Keilis-Borok and associates in four forecasts. The first of these forecasts missed both magnitude (M 7.5) and time (a five-year window from 1 January 1984, to 31 December 1988). They did get the location, by including most of California and half of Nevada. A subsequent revision, presented to the NEPEC, extended the time window to 1 July 1992, and reduced the location to only central California; the magnitude remained the same. A figure they presented had two more revisions, for M ≥ 7.0 quakes in central California. The five-year time window for one ended in July 1989, and so missed the Loma Prieta event; the second revision extended to 1990, and so included Loma Prieta.

Harris describes two differing views about whether the Loma Prieta earthquake was predicted. One view argues it did not occur on the San Andreas fault (the focus of most of the forecasts), and involved dip-slip (vertical) movement rather than strike-slip (horizontal) movement, and so was not predicted. The other view argues that it did occur in the San Andreas fault zone, and released much of the strain accumulated since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake; therefore several of the forecasts were correct. Hough states that "most seismologists" do not believe this quake was predicted "per se". In a strict sense there were no predictions, only forecasts, which were only partially successful.

Iben Browning claimed to have predicted the Loma Prieta event, but (as will be seen in the next section) this claim has been rejected.

Further information: 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake

1990: New Madrid, USA (Browning)

Dr. Iben Browning (a scientist by virtue of a Ph.D. degree in zoology and training as a biophysicist, but no training or experience in geology, geophysics, or seismology) was an "independent business consultant" who forecast long-term climate trends for businesses, including publication of a newsletter. He seems to have been enamored of the idea (scientifically unproven) that volcanoes and earthquakes are more likely to be triggered when the tidal force of the sun and the moon coincide to exert maximum stress on the earth's crust. Having calculated when these tidal forces maximize, Browning then "projected" what areas he thought might be ripe for a large earthquake. An area he mentioned frequently was the New Madrid Seismic Zone at the southeast corner of the state of Missouri, the site of three very large earthquakes in 1811-1812, which he coupled with the date of 3 December 1990.

Browning's reputation and perceived credibility were boosted when he claimed in various promotional flyers and advertisements to have predicted (among various other events) the Loma Prieta earthquake of 17 October 1989. The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) eventually formed an Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) to evaluate Browning's prediction. Its report (issued 18 October 1990) specifically rejected the claim of a successful prediction of the Loma Prieta earthquake; examination of a transcript of his talk in San Francisco on 10 October showed he had said only: "there will probably be several earthquakes around the world, Richter 6+, and there may be a volcano or two" – which, on a global scale, is about average for a week – with no mention of any earthquake anywhere in California.

Though the AHWG report thoroughly demolished Browning's claims of prior success and the basis of his "projection", it made little impact, coming after a year of continued claims of a successful prediction, the endorsement and support of geophysicist David Stewart, and the tacit endorsement of many public authorities in their preparations for a major disaster, all of which was amplified by massive exposure in all major news media. The result was predictable. According to Tierney:

... no forecast associated with an earthquake (or for that matter with any other hazard in the U. S.) has ever generated the degree of concern and public involvement that was observed with the Browning prediction.

On 3 December, despite tidal forces and the presence of some 30 TV and radio crews: nothing happened.

1998: Iceland (Crampin)

Crampin, Volti & Stefánsson (1999) claimed a successful prediction – what they called a stress forecast – of an M 5 earthquake in Iceland on 13 November 1998 through observations of what is called shear wave splitting. This claim has been disputed; a rigorous statistical analysis found that the result was as likely due to chance as not.

"The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, with its lack of obvious precursors, demonstrates that reliable short-term earthquake prediction still is not achievable."

— Bakun et al. 2005

2004 & 2005: Southern California, USA (Keilis-Borok)

The M8 algorithm (developed under the leadership of Dr. Vladimir Keilis-Borok at UCLA) gained considerable respect by the apparently successful predictions of the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes. Great interest was therefore generated by the announcement in early 2004 of a predicted M ≥ 6.4 earthquake to occur somewhere within an area of southern California of approximately 12,000 sq. miles, on or before 5 September 2004. In evaluating this prediction the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (CEPEC) noted that this method had not yet made enough predictions for statistical validation, and was sensitive to input assumptions. It therefore concluded that no "special public policy actions" were warranted, though it reminded all Californians "of the significant seismic hazards throughout the state." The predicted earthquake did not occur.

A very similar prediction was made for an earthquake on or before 14 August 2005, in approximately the same area of southern California. The CEPEC's evaluation and recommendation were essentially the same, this time noting that the previous prediction and two others had not been fulfilled. This prediction also failed.

"Despite over a century of scientific effort, the understanding of earthquake predictability remains immature."

— ICEF, 2011

2009: L'Aquila, Italy (Giuliani)

At 3:32 in the morning of 6 April 2009, the Abruzzo region of central Italy was rocked by a magnitude M 6.3 earthquake. In the city of L'Aquila and surrounding area some sixty thousand buildings, including many homes, collapsed or were seriously damaged, resulting in 308 deaths and 67,500 people left homeless. Hard upon the news of the earthquake came news that a Giampaolo Giuliani had predicted this earthquake, had tried to warn the public, but had been muzzled by the Italian government.

Closer examination shows a more subtle story. Giampaolo Giuliani is a laboratory technician at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso. As a hobby he has for some years been monitoring radon (a short-lived radioactive gas that has been implicated as an earthquake precursor), using instruments he has designed and built. Prior to the L'Aqulia earthquake he was unknown to the scientific community, and had not published any kind of scientific work. Giuliani's rise to fame may be dated to when he was interviewed on 24 March 2009, by an Italian-language blog, Donne Democratiche, about a swarm of low-level earthquakes in the Abruzzo region that had started the previous December. He reportedly said that this swarm was normal, and would diminish by the end of March. On 30 March L'Aquila was struck by a magnitude 4.0 tremblor, the largest to date.

One source says that on the 27th Giuliani warned the mayor of L'Aquila there could be an earthquake with 24 hours. As indeed there was – but none larger than about M 2.3.

On 29 March he made a second prediction. The details are hazy, but apparently he telephoned the mayor of the town of Sulmona, about 55 kilometers southeast of L'Aquila, to expect a "damaging" – or even "catastrophic" – earthquake within 6 to 24 hours. This is the incident with the loudspeaker vans warning the inhabitants of Sulmona (not L'Aquila) to evacuate, with consequential panic. Nothing ensued, except Giuliano was cited for procurato allarme (inciting public alarm) and injoined from making public predictions.

After the L'Aquila event Giuliani claimed that he had found alarming rises in radon levels just hours before. Although he reportedly claimed to have "phoned urgent warnings to relatives, friends and colleagues" on the evening before the earthquake hit, the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection, after interviewing Giuliani, found that there had been no valid prediction of the mainshock before its occurrence.

Further information: 2009 L'Aquila earthquake

Difficulty or impossibility

As the preceding examples show, the record of earthquake prediction has been disappointing. Even where earthquakes have unambiguously occurred within the parameters of a prediction, statistical analysis has generally shown these to be no better than lucky guesses. The optimism of the 1970s that routine prediction of earthquakes would be "soon", perhaps within ten years, was coming up disappointingly short by the 1990s, and many scientists began wondering why. By 1997 it was being positively stated that earthquakes can not be predicted, which led to a notable debate in 1999 on whether prediction of individual earthquakes is a realistic scientific goal. For many the question is whether the prediction of individual earthquakes is merely hard, or intrinsically impossible.

Earthquake prediction may have failed only because it is "fiendishly difficult" and still beyond the current competency of science. Despite the confident announcement four decades ago that seismology was "on the verge" of making reliable predictions, there may yet be an underestimation of the difficulties. As early as 1978 it was reported that earthquake rupture might be complicated by "heterogeneous distribution of mechanical properties along the fault", and in 1986 that geometrical irregularities in the fault surface "appear to exert major controls on the starting and stopping of ruptures". Another study attributed significant differences in fault behavior to the maturity of the fault. These kinds of complexities are not reflected in current prediction methods.

Seismology may even yet lack an adequate grasp of its most central concept, elastic rebound theory. A simulation that explored assumptions regarding the distribution of slip found results "not in agreement with the classical view of the elastic rebound theory". (This was attributed to details of fault heterogeneity not accounted for in the theory.)

Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible. It has been argued that the Earth is in a state of self-organized criticality "where any small earthquake has some probability of cascading into a large event". It has also been argued on decision-theoretic grounds that "prediction of major earthquakes is, in any practical sense, impossible."

That earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed But the best disproof of impossibility – effective earthquake prediction – has yet to be demonstrated.

"... predicting earthquakes is challenging and may be possible in the future ..."

– Amoruso & Crescentini 2012

See also

• 2008 California earthquake study
• California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
• Coordinating Committee for Earthquake Prediction, Japan
• Earthquake engineering
• Earthquake storm
• Earthquake warning systems
• Earthquake weather
• Forecasting
• National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
• Pacific Ring of Fire
• Quakesat
• Seismo-electromagnetics
• Supermoon

References

• The Ad Hoc Working Group on the December 2—3, 1990, Earthquake Prediction [AHWG] (18 October 1990), Evaluation of the December 2-3, 1990, New Madrid Seismic Zone Prediction{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). Included in App. B of Spence et al. 1993.
• Aggarwal, Yash P.; Sykes, Lynn R.; Simpson, David W.; Richards, Paul G. (10 February 1975), "Spatial and Temporal Variations in t_s/t_p and in P Wave Residuals at Blue Mountain Lake, New York: Application to Earthquake Prediction", Journal of Geophysical Research, 80 (5): 718–732, Bibcode:1975JGR....80..718A, doi:10.1029/JB080i005p00718.
• Alexander, David E. (2010), "The L'Aquila Earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian Government Policy on Disaster Response", Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2 (4): 325–342, doi:10.1080/19390459.2010.511450.
• Allen, Clarence R. (December 1976), "Responsibilities in earthquake prediction", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 66 (6): 2069–2074.
• Allen, Clarence R. (December 1982), "Earthquake Prediction – 1982 Overview", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Ammerica, 72 (6B): S331—S335.
• Allen, Clarence R. (1983), "The Southern California Earthquake Prediction of 1976 : A Prediction Unfulfilled" (PDF), Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories, Geneva, 12–15 October 1982: UNDRO, pp. 77–82{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link).
• Anonymous [Haicheng Earthquake Study Delegation] (May 1977), "Prediction of the Haicheng Earthquake", Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 58 (5): 236–272, Bibcode:1977EOSTr..58..236., doi:10.1029/EO058i005p00236{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). (Sometimes cited as Raleigh, et al., 1977.)
• Atwood, L. Erwin; Major, Ann Marie (November 1998), "Exploring the "Cry Wolf" Hypothesis", International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 16 (3): 279–302.
• Bakun, W. H.; Aagaard, B.; Dost, B.; Ellsworth, W. L.; Hardebeck, J. L.; Harris, R. A.; Ji, C.; Johnston, M. J. S.; Langbein, J.; Lienkaemper, J. J.; Michael, A. J.; Murray, J. R.; Nadeau, R. M.; Reasenberg, P. A.; Reichle, M. S.; Roeloffs, E. A.; Shakal, A.; Simpson, R. W.; and Waldhauser, F. (13 October 2005), "Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake", Nature, 437: 969–974, Bibcode:2005Natur.437..969B, doi:10.1038/nature04067 {{citation}}: Missing |author18= (help).
• Bakun, W.H.; Breckenridge, K.S.; Bredehoeft, J.; Burford, R.O.; Ellsworth, W.L.; Johnston, M.J.S.; Jones, L.; Lindh, A.G.; Mortensen, C.; Mueller, R. J.; Poley, C. M.; Roeloffs, E.; Schulz, S.; Segall, P.; Thatcher, W. (1 May 1987), "Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Scenarios and Response Plans" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 87-192.
• Bakun, W. H.; Lindh, A. G. (16 August 1985), "The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Experiment" (PDF), Science, 229: 619–624, Bibcode:1985Sci...229..619B, doi:10.1126/science.229.4714.619.
• Bakun, W. H.; McEvilly, T. V. (28 September 1979), "Earthquakes near Parkfield, California: Comparing the 1934 and 1966 Sequences" (PDF), Science, 205: 1375–1377, Bibcode:1979Sci...205.1375B, doi:10.1126/science.205.4413.1375.
• Barnes, Lindsey; Schultz, David M.; Gruntfest, Eve C.; Hayden, Mary H.; Benight, Charles C. (October 2009), "CORRIGENDUM: False Alarm Rate or False Alarm Ratio?", Weather and Forecasting, 24: 1452–1454, Bibcode:2009WtFor..24.1452B, doi:10.1175/2009WAF2222300.1.
• Bernard, P. (10 November 1992), "Plausibility of long distance electrotelluric precursors to earthquakes", Journal of Geophysical Research, 97: 17531–17546, Bibcode:1992JGR....9717531B, doi:10.1029/92JB01215.
• Bernard, P.; LeMouel, J. L. (1996), "On electrotelluric signals", A critical review of VAN, London: Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific, pp. 118–154.
• Bolt, Bruce A. (1993), Earthquakes and geological discovery, Scientific American Library, ISBN 0-7167-5040-6.
• Bowman, D. D.; Quillon, G.; Sammis, C. G.; Sornette, A.; Sornette, D. (10 October 1998), "An observational test of the critical earthquake concept" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 103 (10): 24, 359–24, 372.
• Brown, Roger; Kulik, James (1977), "Flashbulb memories", Cognition, 5 (1): 73–99, doi:10.1016/0010-0277(77)90018-X.
• California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (2 March 2004), Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services (PDF){{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
• California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (9 December 2004), Report to the Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
• Campbell, W. H. (2009), "Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors, preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake", Journal of Geophysical Research, 114 (A5): A05307, Bibcode:2009JGRA..11405307C., doi:10.1029/2008JA013932 {{citation}}: Check |bibcode= length (help).
• Cartlidge, Edwin (3 June 2011), "Quake Experts to Be Tried For Manslaughter", Science, 332: 1135–1136, Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1135C. {{citation}}: Check |bibcode= length (help).
• Cartlidge, Edwin (12 October 2012), "Aftershocks in the Courtroom", Science, 338: 184–188, doi:10.1126/science.338.6104.184.
• Castellaro, S. (2003), "§2.4.3. The classical earthquake model", in Mulargia, Francesco; Geller, Robert J. (eds.), Earthquake science and seismic risk reduction, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 56–57, ISBN 9781402017780.
• Cicerone, Robert D.; Ebel, John E.; Britton, James (25 October 2009), "A systematic compilation of earthquake precursors" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 476 (3–4): 371–396, Bibcode:2009Tectp.476..371C, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2009.06.008.
• Console, R. (30 August 2001), "Testing earthquake forecast hypotheses", Tectonophysics, 338 (3–4): 261–268, Bibcode:2001Tectp.338..261C, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00081-6.
• Cowan, Hugh; Nicol, Andrew; Tonkin, Philip (10 March 1996), "A comparison of historical and paleoseismicity in a newly formed fault zone and a mature fault zone, North Canterbury, New Zealand" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 101 (B3): 6021–6036, Bibcode:1996JGR...101.6021C, doi:10.1029/95JB01588.
• Crampin, Stuart (November 1987), "The basis for earthquake prediction", Geophysical Journal International, 91 (2): 331–347, Bibcode:1987GeoJI..91..331C, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1987.tb05230.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Crampin, Stuart; Volti, Theodora; Stefánsson, Ragnar (July 1999), "A successfully stress-forecast earthquake" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 138: F1—F5, Bibcode:1999GeoJI.138....1X, doi:10.1046/j.1365-246X.1999.00891.x.
• Davies, D. (27 November 1975), "Earthquake prediction in China", Nature, 258: 286–287, Bibcode:1975Natur.258..286D, doi:10.1038/258286a0.
• Dollar, John (5 April 2010), "The man who predicted an earthquake", The Guardian.
• Evans, R. (December 1997), "Assessment of schemes for earthquake prediction: Editor's introduction", Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 413–420, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..413E, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06585.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Evison, Frank (October 1999), "On the existence of earthquake precursors" (PDF), Annali di Geofisica, 42 (5): 763–770.
• Fraser-Smith, A. C.; Bernardi, A.; McGill, P. R.; Ladd, M. E.; Helliwell, R. A.; Villard, Jr., O. G. (1990), "Low-Frequency Magnetic Field Measurements Near the Epicenter of the Ms 7.1 Loma Prieta Earthquake", Geophysical Research Letters, 17 (9): 1465–1468, doi:10.1029/GL017i009p01465.
• Garwin, Laura (26 October 1989), "A successful prediction?", Nature, 341: 677, Bibcode:1989Natur.341..677G, doi:10.1038/341677a0.
• Garza, Tomás; Lomnitz, Cinna (1979), "The Oaxaca gap: A case history", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 117 (6): 1187–1194, Bibcode:1979PApGe.117.1187G, doi:10.1007/BF00876214.
• Geller, Robert J. (17 October 1991), "Unpredictable earthquakes [response to Hamada]", Nature, 353: 612, Bibcode:1991Natur.353..612G, doi:10.1038/353612a0.
• Geller, R. J. (27 May 1996), "Debate on evaluation of the VAN method: Editor's introduction", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1291–1293, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1291G, doi:10.1029/96GL00742.
• Geller, Robert J. (December 1997), "Earthquake prediction: a critical review." (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 425–450, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..425G, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Geller, Robert J.; Jackson, David D.; Kagan, Yan Y.; Mulargia, Francesco (14 March 1997), "Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted" (PDF), Science, 275: 1616, doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1616.
• Gersony, Robert, ed. (1982b), "Selected Available Documentation: The Brady Earthquake Predictions" (PDF), The Lima Disaster Preparedness Report, vol. XIII–B{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link).
• Giesecke, Albert A. (1983), "Case history of the Peru prediction for 1980-1981" (PDF), Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories, Geneva, 12–15 October 1982: UNDPRO, pp. 51–74{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link).
• Hall, Stephen S. (15 September 2011), "At Fault?" (PDF), Nature, 477: 264–269, Bibcode:2011Natur.477..264H, doi:10.1038/477264a.
• Hamada, K. (17 October 1991), "Unpredictable earthquakes", Nature, 353: 611–612, Bibcode:1991Natur.353..611H, doi:10.1038/353611c0.
• Hamilton, Robert M. (1976), "Earth Prediction — Opportunity to Avert Disaster", U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 729: 6–9 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help).
• Hammond, Allen L. (23 May 1973), "Earthquake predictions: Breakthrough in theoretical insight?" (PDF), Science, 180: 851–853, Bibcode:1973Sci...180..851H, doi:10.1126/science.180.4088.851.
• Hammond, Allen L. (3 May 1974), "Dilatancy: Growing Acceptance as an Earthquake Mechanism" (PDF), Science, 184: 551–552, Bibcode:1974Sci...184..551H, doi:10.1126/science.184.4136.551.
• Hammond, Allen L. (7 February 1975), "Earthquake Prediction: Progress in California, Hesitation in Washington" (PDF), Science, 187: 419–420, Bibcode:1975Sci...187..419H, doi:10.1126/science.187.4175.419.
• Hammond, Allen L. (7 May 1976), "Earthquakes: An evacuation in China, a warning in California", Science, 192: 538–539, Bibcode:1976Sci...192..538H, doi:10.1126/science.192.4239.538.
• Hardebeck, Jeanne L.; Felzer, Karen R.; Michael, Andrew J. (August 2008), "Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 113 (B08130), Bibcode:2008JGRB..113.8310H, doi:10.1029/2007JB005410.
• Harris, Ruth A. (1998), The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Forecasts (PDF), vol. Open-File Report 1550-B, U.S. Geological Survey.
• Harris, Ruth A.; Arrowsmith, J Ramon (September 2006), "Introduction to the Special Issue on the 2004 Parkfield Earthquake and the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96 (4B): S1—S5, Bibcode:2006BuSSA..96S...1H, doi:10.1785/0120050831.
• Hough, Susan Elizabeth (2007), Richter's Scale: Measure of an Earthquake, Measure of a Man, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-12807-8.
• Hough, Susan Elizabeth (January–February 2010), "A seismological retrospective of the Brady-Spence prediction" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 81 (1): 113–117, doi:10.1785/gssrl.81.1.113{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link).
• Hough, Susan (2010b), Predicting the Unpredictable: The Tumultuous Science of Earthquake Prediction, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-13816-9.
• Immè, Giuseppina; Morelli, Daniela (2012), "Radon as Earthquake Precursor" (PDF), in D'Amico (ed.), Earthquake Research and Analysis.
• International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (2 October 2009), Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization – Executive Summary (PDF).
• International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (30 May 2011), "Operational Earthquake Forecasting: State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization", Annals of Geophysics, 54 (4): 315–391, doi:10.4401/ag-5350.
• Jackson, David D. (April 1996a), "Hypothesis testing and earthquake prediction" (PDF), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 93: 3772–3775{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link).
• Jackson, David D. (27 May, 1996b), "Earthquake prediction evaluation standards applied to the VAN method", Geophysical Review Letters, 23 (11): 1363–1366 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).
• Jackson, David D. (2004), "The State of the Planet: Frontiers and Challenges in Geophysics" (PDF), Geophysical Monograph 150: 335–348, Bibcode:2004GMS...150..335J, doi:10.1029/150GM26 {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help).
• Jackson, David D.; Kagan, Yan Y. (September 2006), "The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, the 1985 prediction, and characteristic earthquakes: Lessons for the future" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96 (4B): S397—S409, Bibcode:2006BuSSA..96S.397J, doi:10.1785/0120050821.
• Jolliffe, Ian T.; Stephenson, David B., eds. (2003), Forecast Verification: A Practitioner’s Guide in Atmospheric Science (1st ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., ISBN 0-471-49759-2.
• Jones, Lucille M. (December 1985), "Foreshocks and time-dependent earthquake hazard assessment in southern California", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75 (6): 1669–1679.
• Jordan, Thomas H.; Jones, Lucile M. (July–August 2010), "Operational Earthquake Forecasting: Some thoughts on why and how" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 81 (4): 571–574, doi:10.1785/gssrl.81.4.571{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
• Jordan, Thomas H.; Jones, Lucile M. (March–April 2011), "Reply to 'A second Opinion on "Operational Earthquake forecasting: some Thoughts on Why and How," by Thomas H. Jordan and lucile M. Jones,' by Stuart Crampin" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 82 (2): 231–232, doi:10.1785/gssrl.82.2.231{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
• Kafka, Alan L.; Ebel, John E. (August 2011), "Proximity to Past Earthquakes as a Least-Astonishing Hypothesis for Forecasting Locations of Future Earthquakes" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101 (4): 1618–1629, Bibcode:2011BuSSA.101.1618K, doi:10.1785/0120090164.
• Kagan, Yan Y. (15 March 1997), "Statistical aspects of Parkfield earthquake sequence and Parkfield prediction experiment" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 270 (3–4): 207–219, Bibcode:1997Tectp.270..207K, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(96)00210-7.
• Kagan, Yan Y. (December 1997b), "Are earthquakes predictable?" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 505–525, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..505K, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06595.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Kagan, Yan Y. (August 1999), "Is Earthquake Seismology a Hard, Quantitative Science?" (PDF), Pure and Applied Geophysics, 155 (2–4): 233–258, Bibcode:1999PApGe.155..233K, doi:10.1007/s000240050264.
• Kagan, Yan Y.; Jackson, David D. (10 December 1991), "Seismic Gap Hypothesis: Ten Years After." (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 96 (B13): 21, 419–21, 431.
• Kagan, Yan Y.; Jackson, David D. (27 May 1996), "Statistical tests of VAN earthquake predictions: comments and reflections" (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1433–1436, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1433K, doi:10.1029/95GL03786.
• Kagan, Yan Y.; Jackson, David d.; Geller, Robert J. (November 2012), "Characteristic earthquake model, 1884 – 2011, R.I.P." (PDF), Seismologocial Research Letters: [in press].
• Kagan, Yan Y.; Knopoff, Leon (19 June 1987), "Statistical Short-Term Earthquake Prediction." (PDF), Science, 236: 1563–1567.
• Kanamori, Hiroo (2003), "Earthquake Prediction: An Overview", International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, 616: 1205–1216, ISBN 0-12-440658-0.
• Kanamori, Hiroo; Stewart, Gordon S. (10 July 1978), "Seismological Aspects of the Guatemala Earthquake of February 4, 1976" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 83 (B7): 3427–3434, Bibcode:1978JGR....83.3427K, doi:10.1029/JB083iB07p03427.
• Kerr, Richard A. (28 April 1978), "Earthquakes: Prediction Proving Elusive" (PDF), Science, 200: 419–421, Bibcode:1978Sci...200..419K, doi:10.1126/science.200.4340.419.Kafka & Ebel 2011
• Kerr, Richard A. (2 November 1979), "Prospects for Earthquake Prediction Wane" (PDF), Science, 206: 542–544, Bibcode:1979Sci...206..542K, doi:10.1126/science.206.4418.542.
• Kerr, Richard A. (20 February 1981), "Prediction of huge Peruvian quakes quashed" (PDF), Science, 211: 808–809, Bibcode:1981Sci...211..808K, doi:10.1126/science.211.4484.808.
• Kerr, Richard A. (18 December 1981), "Palmdale Bulge Doubts Now Taken Seriously" (PDF), Science, 214: 1331–33{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
• Kerr, Richard A. (6 January 1984), "Stalking the Next Parkfield Earthquake" (PDF), Science, 223: 36–38, Bibcode:1984Sci...223...36K, doi:10.1126/science.223.4631.36.
• Kerr, Richard A. (27 October 1989), "Reading the Future in Loma Prieta" (PDF), Science, 246: 436–439, Bibcode:1989Sci...246..436K, doi:10.1126/science.246.4929.436.
• Kerr, Richard A. (8 October 2004), "Parkfield Keeps Secrets After A Long-Awaited Quake" (PDF), Science, 306: 206–7.
• Kerr, Richard A. (17 April 2009), "After the Quake, in Search of the Science—or Even a Good Prediction" (PDF), Science, 324: 322, Bibcode:2009Sci...324..322K, doi:10.1126/science.324.5925.322.
• Kington, Tom (23 October 2012), "Italian scientist convicted over L'Aquila earthquake condemns 'medieval' court", The Guardian, retrieved 23 October 2012.
• Lagoutte, D.; Brochot, J. Y.; de Carvalho, D.; Elie, F.; Harivelo, F.; Hobara, Y.; Madrias, L.; Parrot, M.; Pincon, J. L.; Berthelier, J. J.; Peschard, D.; Seran, E.; Gangloff, M.; Sauvaud, J. A.; Lebreton, J. P.; Stverak, S.; Travnicek, P.; Grygorczuk, J.; Slominski, J.; Wronowski, R.; Barbier, S.; Bernard, P.; Gaboriaud, A.; Wallut, J. M. (April 2006), "The DEMETER Science Mission Centre", Planetary and Space Science, 54 (5): 428–440, doi:10.1016/j.pss.2005.10.014.
• Lighthill, Sir James, ed. (1996), A Critical Review of VAN – Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electrical Signals, London: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd, ISBN 978-981-02-2670-1.
• Lighton, John R.B.; Duncan, Frances D. (15 August 2005), "Shaken, not stirred: a serendipitous study of ants and earthquakes" (PDF), Journal of Experimental Biology, 208: 3103–3107, doi:10.1242/jeb.01735.
• Lindberg, Robert G.; Skiles, Durward; Hayden, Page (1981), "Can animals predict earthqaukes? A search for correlations between changes in activity patterns of two fossorial rodents and subsequent seismic events" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 81-385.
• Lindh, A.G.; Lockner, D.A.; Lee, W.H.K. (June 1978), "Velocity anomalies: An alternative explanation" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 68 (3): 721–734.
• Lomnitz, Cinna (1983), "Oaxaca, Mexico, predictions" (PDF), Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories, Geneva, 12—15 October 1982: UNDPRO, pp. 29–34{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link).
• Lomnitz, Cinna (1994), Fundamentals of earthquake prediction, New York: John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-57419-8, OCLC 647404423.
• Lomnitz, Cinna; Nava, F. Alejandro (December 1983), "The predictive value of seismic gaps.", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73 (6A): 1815–1824.
• Lott, Dale F.; Hart, Benjamin L.; Verosub, Kenneth L.; Howell, Mary W. (September 1979), "Is Unusual Animal Behavior Observed Before Earthquakes? Yes and No", Geophysical Research Letters, 6 (9): 685–687, doi:10.1029/GL006i009p00685.
• Lott, Dale F.; Hart, Benjamin L.; Howell, Mary W. (December 1981), "Retrospective Studies of Unusual Animal Behavior as an Earthquake Predictor", Geophysical Research Letters, 8 (12): 1203–1206, doi:10.1029/GL008i012p01203.
• Ludwin, Ruth (May 2001), "Earthquake Prediction" (PDF), Washington Geology, 28 (3): 27–28.
• Luen, Brad; Stark, Philip B. (2008), "Testing earthquake predictions", Institute of Mathematical Statistics collections: Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of David A. Freedman (PDF), vol. 2, pp. 302–315, ISBN 978-0-94060074-4.
• Mabey, Matthew A. (May 2001), "The Charlatan Game" (PDF), Washington Geology, 28 (3): 27–28. Also at USGS.
• McCann, W. R.; Nishenko, S. P.; Sykes, L. R.; Krause, J. (1979), "Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: Seismic potential for major boundaries", Pure and Applied Geophysics, 117: 1082–1147, Bibcode:1979PApGe.117.1082M, doi:10.1007/BF00876211.
• McEvilly, T.V.; Johnson, L.R. (April 1974), "Stability of P an S velocities from Central California quarry blasts", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 64 (2): 343–353.
• McIntyre, Jamie (April–May 2009), "When Outrage Trumps Science: Italian quake prediction produces tabloid tremors", American Journalism Review{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link).
• McNally, Karen (November–December 1979), "Trapping an Earthquake" (PDF), Engineering & Science, pp. 7–12{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link).
• Main, Ian [moderator] (February 1999), Is the reliable prediction of individual earthquakes a realistic scientific goal?, Nature{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link).
• Mason, Ian (2003), "Binary Events", {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Chap. 3 in Jolliffe & Stephenson 2003.

• Matthews, Robert A. J. (December 1997), "Decision-theoretic limits on earthquake prediction", Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 526–529, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..526M, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06596.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Mignan, Arnaud (June 2011), "Retrospective on the Accelerating Seismic Release (ASR) hypothesis: controversy and new horizons", Tectonophysics, 505 (1–4): 1–16, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2011.03.010.
• Miller, Sunlen; Patrick, Maggy; Capatides, Christina (24 August 2011), Sixth Sense? Zoo Animals Sensed Quake Early, ABC News.
• Mulargia, Francesco; Gasperini, Paolo (1992), "Evaluating the statistical validity beyond chance of 'VAN' earthquake precursors" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 111: 32–44, Bibcode:1992GeoJI.111...32M, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1992.tb00552.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Mulargia, Francesco; Gasperini, Paolo (27 May 1996), "Precursor candidacy and validation: The VAN case so far" (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1323–1326, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1323M, doi:10.1029/95GL03456.
• Noson, L. L.; Qamar, A.; Thorsen, G. W. (1988), Washington State Earthquake Hazards (PDF), Information Circular, vol. 85, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources.
• Nurmi, Pertti (December 2003), Recommendations on the verification of local weather forecasts (PDF), ECMWF Technical Memorandum, vol. 430, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts.
• Ohtake, Masakazu; Matumoto, Tosimatu; Latham, Gary V. (1977), "Seismicity gap near Oaxaca, southern Mexico, as a probable precursor to a large earthquake" (PDF), Pure Applied Geophysics, 115: 375–385.
• Ohtake, Masakazu; Matumoto, Tosimatu; Latham, Gary V. (1981), "Evaluation of the forecast of the 1978, Oaxaca, southern Mexico earthquake based on a precursory seismic quiescence" (PDF), Earthquake Prediction: An International Review, Maurice Ewing Series, vol. 4, AGU, pp. 53–61.
• Otis, Leon; Kautz, William (1979), "Proceedings of Conference XI: Abnormal Animal Behavior Prior to Earthquakes, II", U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 80-453: 225–226 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help).
• Panel on Earthquake Prediction of the Committee on Seismology [C.R Allen, chairman] (July 1976), Predicting Earthquakes: A Scientific and Technical Evaluation – with Implications for Society (PDF), Washington, D.C.: National Academy Sciences{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link).
• Park, S. (July 1996), "Precursors to earthquakes: seismoelectromagnetic signals" (PDF), Surveys in Geophysics, 17 (4): 493–516, Bibcode:1996SGeo...17..493P, doi:10.1007/BF01901642.
• Reid, Harry Fielding (1910), "The Mechanics of the Earthquake.", The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, vol. Vol. 2 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help).
• Rhoades, D.A.; Evison, F.F. (27 May 1996), "The VAN earthquake predictions", Geophysical Research Letters, 23 (11): 1371–1373, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1371R, doi:10.1029/95GL02792.
• Rikitake, Tsuneji (1 May 1979), "Classification of earthquake precursors", Tectonophysics, 54 (3–4): 293–309, Bibcode:1979Tectp..54..293R, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(79)90372-X.
• Rikitake, Tsuneji (1982), Earthquake Forecasting and Warning, Tokyo: Center for Academic Publications.
• Roberts, J.L. (1983), "Notes on procedure for conveying earthquake forecasts with special reference to the Peru predictions for 1980-1981" (PDF), Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories, Geneva, 12–15 October 1982: UNDPRO{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link).
• Roeloffs, Evelyn; Langbein, John (August 1994), "The earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield California", Review of Geophysics, 32: 315–336, Bibcode:1994RvGeo..32..315R, doi:10.1029/94RG01114.
• Rong, Yufang; Jackson, David D.; Kagan, Yan Y. (October 2003), "Seismic gaps and earthquakes" (PDF), Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (B10): 1–14, Bibcode:2003JGRB..108.2471R, doi:10.1029/2002JB002334.
• Saegusa, A. (28 January 1999), "China clamps down on inaccurate warnings", Nature, 397: 284, Bibcode:1999Natur.397..284W, doi:10.1038/16756.
• Schaal, Rand B. (February 1988), "An evaluation of the animal-behavior theory for earthquake predictions" (PDF), California Geology, 41 (2): 41–45.
• Scholz, Christopher (March 1997), "What ever happened to earthquake prediction?", Geotimes, vol. 42, no. 3. Reprinted at USGS.
• Scholz, Christopher H. (2002), The Mechanics of earthquakes and faulting (2nd ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, ISBN 0-521-65223-5.
• Scholz, Christopher H.; Sykes, Lynn R.; Aggarwal, Yah P. (31 August 1973), "Earthquake Prediction: A Physical Basis" (PDF), Science, 181: 803–810, Bibcode:1973Sci...181..803S, doi:10.1126/science.181.4102.803.
• Schwartz, David P.; Coppersmith, Kevin J. (10 July 1984), "Fault Behavior and Characteristic Earthquakes: Examples From the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones", Journal of Geophysical Research, 89 (B7): 5681–5698, Bibcode:1984JGR....89.5681S, doi:10.1029/JB089iB07p05681.
• Seher, T.; Main, I. G. (2004), "A statistical evaluation of a 'stress-forecast' earthquake", Geophysical Journal International, 157: 187–193, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02186.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Shapley, Deborah (7 May 1976), "Earthquakes: Los Angeles Prediction Suggests Faults in Federal Policy" (PDF), Science, 192: 535–537, Bibcode:1976Sci...192..535S, doi:10.1126/science.192.4239.535.
• Shen, Xuhui; Zhang, Xuemin; Wang, Lanwei; Chen, Huaran; Wu, Yun; Yuan, Shigeng; Shen, Junfeng; Zhao, Shufan; Qian, Jiadong; Ding, Jianhai (December 2011), "The earthquake-related disturbances in ionosphere and project of the first China seismo-electromagnetic satellite", Earthquake Science, 24 (6): 639–650, Bibcode:2011EaSci..24..639S, doi:10.1007/s11589-011-0824-0.
• Sibson, R. H. (1986), "Earthquakes and Lineament Infrastructure" (PDF), Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 317: 63–79, Bibcode:1986RSPTA.317...63S, doi:10.1098/rsta.1986.0025.
• Smith, Peter J. (10 February 1975), "Crack theory developed", Nature, 253: 593.
• Smith, Peter J. (22 May 1975), "Successful quake prediction made", Nature, 255: 282, Bibcode:1975Natur.255..282S, doi:10.1038/255282a0.
• Spence, William; Herrmann, Robert B.; Johnston, Arch C.; Reagor, Glen (1993), "Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1083.
• Squires, Nick; Rayne, Gordon (6 April 2009), "Italian earthquake: expert's warnings were dismissed as scaremongering", The Telegraph.
• Stark, Philip B. (1997), "Earthquake prediction: the null hypothesis", Geophysical Journal International, 131: 495–499, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..495S, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06593.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Stein, Seth; Friedrich, Anke; Newman, Andrew (July–August 2005), "Dependence of possible characteristic earthquakes on spatial sampling: illustration for the Wasatch seismic zone, Utah" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 76 (4): 432–436.
• Stein, Seth; Newman, Andrew (March–April 2004), "Characteristic and uncharacteristic earthquakes as possible artifacts: application to the New Madrid and Wabash seismic zones" (PDF), Seismological Research Letters, 75 (2): 173–187.
• Stevenson, D. A.; Talwani, Pradeep; Amick, D. C. (April 1976), "Recent seismic activity near Lake Jocasse, Oconcee Co., South Carolina: Preliminary Results and a Successful Earthquake Prediction", Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 57 (4): 290.
• Suzuki, Ziro (1982), "Earthquake Prediction" (PDF), Annual Review of Earth Planetary Science, 10: 235–256.
• Swets, John A. (7 December 1973), "The Relative Operating Characterstic in Pyschology", Science, 182: 990–1000.
• Sykes, Lynn R.; Shaw, Bruce E.; Scholz, Christopher H. (1999), "Rethinking Earthquake Prediction" (PDF), Pure and Applied Geophysics, 155: 207–232, Bibcode:1999PApGe.155..207S, doi:10.1007/s000240050263.
• Talwani, Pradeep (1981), "Earthquake Prediction Studies in South Carolina" (PDF), Earthquake Prediction: An International Review, Maurice Ewing Series, vol. 4, AGU, pp. 381–393.
• Thomas, J. N.; Love, J. J.; Johnston, M. J. S. (2009), "On the reported magnetic precursor of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake", Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 173 (3–4): 207–215, Bibcode:2009PEPI..173..207T, doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2008.11.014.
• Thomas, Lee M. (1983), "Economic impacts of earthquake prediction" (PDF), Proceedings of the Seminar on Earthquake Prediction Case Histories, Geneva, 12–15 October 1982: UNDPRO, pp. 179–185{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link).
• Tiampo, Kristy F.; Shcherbakov, Robert (2012), "Seismicity-based earthquake forecasting techniques: Ten years of progress" (PDF), Tectonophysics, 522–523: 89–121, Bibcode:2012Tectp.522...89T, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2011.08.019.
• Tierney, Kathleen J. (1993), "Making sense of collective preoccupations: lessons from research on the Iben Browning earthquake prediction." (PDF), in Platt, Gerald M.; Gordon, Chad (eds.), Self, Collective Behavior, and Society: Essays Honoring the Contributions of Ralph H. Turner, JAI Press, ISBN 978-155938755-2.
• Turcotte, Donald L. (1991), "Earthquake Prediction" (PDF), Annual Review of Earth Planetary Science, 19: 263–281.
• Turner, Ralph H. (November 1993), "Reflections on the Past and Future of Social Research on Earthquake Warnings", International Journal of Mass Emergecnies and Disasters, 11 (3): :454–468{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link).
• U.S. Geological Survey (1976), "Earth Prediction — Opportunity to Avert Disaster; A conference on earthquake warning and response held in San Francisco, California, on November 7, 1975." (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 729: 6–9. (Sometimes attributed to McKelvey, who wrote the Forward.)
• U.S. Geological Survey Staff (19 January 1990), "The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake: an anticipated event" (PDF), Science, 247: 286–293, Bibcode:1990Sci...247..286G, doi:10.1126/science.247.4940.286.
• Varotsos, P.; Lazaridou, M. (1991), "Latest aspects of earthquake prediction in Greece based on seismic electric signals", Tectonophysics, 188 (3–4): 321–347, Bibcode:1991Tectp.188..321V, doi:10.1016/0040-1951(91)90462-2.
• Varotsos, P.; Alexopoulos, K.; Nomicos, K. (1981), "Seven-hour precursors to earthquakes determined from telluric currents", Praktika of the Academy of Athens, 56: 417–433.
• Varotsos, P.; Alexopoulos, K.; Nomicos, K.; Lazaridou, M. (1986), "Earthquake prediction and electric signals", Nature, 322 (6075): 120, Bibcode:1986Natur.322..120V, doi:10.1038/322120a0.
• Varotsos, P.; Sarlis, N.; Skordas, E. (2011), Natural time analysis : the new view of time ; Precursory seismic electric signals, earthquakes and other complex time series, Springer Praxis, ISBN 364216448-X.
• Verkade, Jan (June 2008), The value of flood warning systems [masters thesis] (PDF), Delft University of Technology.
• Vidale, John E. (16 February 1996), "Do Big and Little Earthquakes Start Differently?" (PDF), Science, 271: 953, Bibcode:1996Sci...271..953V, doi:10.1126/science.271.5251.953.
• Wade, Nicholas (14 October 1977), "Briefing: More Flowers, less Cabbage" (PDF), Science, 198: 176–177, Bibcode:1977Sci...198..176W, doi:10.1126/science.198.4313.176-a.
• Wang, Kelin; Chen, Qi-Fu; Sun, Shihong; Wang, Andong (June 2006), "Predicting the 1975 Haicheng Earthquake" (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96 (3): 757–795, doi:10.1s85/0120050191 {{citation}}: Check |doi= value (help).
• Ward, Peter L. (1978), "Ch. 3: Earthquake prediction", Geophysical predictions (PDF), National Academy of Sciences.
• Wells, D. L.; Coppersmith, K. J. (August 1994), "New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement." (PDF), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84 (4): 974–1002.
• Whitcomb, J. H. (1977), "An update of time-dependent vp/vs and ^Vp in an area of the Transverse Range of southern California [abstract]" (PDF), Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 58 (5): 305.
• Whitham, K.; Berry, M.J.; Heidebrecht, A.C.; Kanasewich, E.R.; Milne, W.G (1976), "Earthquake Prediction in China", Geoscience Canada, 3 (4): 263–268.
• Wood, H. O.; Gutenberg, B. (6 September 1935), "Earthquake prediction" (PDF), Science, 82 (2123): 219–320, Bibcode:1935Sci....82..219W, doi:10.1126/science.82.2123.219.
• Working Group [on the southern San Andreas fault] (1991), "Short-Term Earthquake Hazard Assessment for the San Andreas Fault in Southern California" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 91-32{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link).
• Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2008), "The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF2)" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1437. Also published as California Geological Survey Special Report 203.
• Wyss, M. (1991a), "Introduction", Tectonophysics, 193: 253–254.
• Wyss, M. (1996), "Brief summary of some reasons why the VAN hypothesis for predicting earthquakes has to be rejected", A critical review of VAN, London: Lighthill, S. J. World Scientific, pp. 250–266.
• Wyss, M.; Allmann, L. (1996), "Probability of chance correlations of earthquakes with prediction in areas of heterogeneous seismicity rate: the VAN case", Geophysical Research Letters, 22: 1307–1310, Bibcode:1996GeoRL..23.1307W, doi:10.1029/95GL03548.
• Wyss, Max; Booth, David C. (1997), "The IASPEI procedure for the evaluation of earthquake precursors", Geophysical Journal International, 131 (3): 423–424, Bibcode:1997GeoJI.131..423W, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06587.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Zbikowski, Douglas W., Institute for Celestial Geodynamics (15 December 2012), Location Studies Plan{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).
• Zechar, J. Douglas (August 2008), Methods for Evaluating Earthquake Prediction [dissertation] (PDF), Univ. of Southern California.
• Zechar, J. Douglas; Jordan, Thomas H. (2008), "Testing alarm-based earthquake predictions" (PDF), Geophysical Journal International, 172 (2): 715–724, Bibcode:2008GeoJI.172..715Z, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03676.x{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
• Zechar, J. Douglas; Schorlemmer, Danijel; Liukis, Maria; Yu, John; Euchner, Fabian; Maechling, Philip J.; Jordan, Thomas H. (2010), "The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability perspective on computational earthquake science" (PDF), Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 22: 1836–1847, doi:10.1002/cpe.1519.
• Ziv, A.; Cochard, A.; Schmittbuhl, J. (2007), "Does Elastic Rebound Theory apply to Seismic Faults?", in Carpinteri, Alberto; Lacidogna, Giuseppi (eds.), Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Fracture, Turin, Italy, March 20-25, 2005, pp. 51–55, ISBN 978-0-415-44402-6 (eBook: 978-0-203-93611-5).
• Zoback, Mark D. (21 October 1983), "Seismology [book review of Rikitake, Earthquake Forecasting and Warning]" (PDF), Science, 222: 319, Bibcode:1983Sci...222..319R, doi:10.1126/science.222.4621.319.
• Zoback, Mary Lou (April–May 2006), "The 1906 earthquake and a century of progress in understanding earthquakes and their hazards." (PDF), GSA Today, 16 (r/5): 4–11, doi:10.1130/GSAT01604.1.

External links

• U.S. Geological Survey: Earthquake Prediction Topics
• Nature magazine - debate on whether earthquake prediction is a realistic scientific goal
• Dr Stuart Robbins (1 September 2012). "Lunatic Earthquakes: Do Tides Cause Quakes?". Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast. Retrieved April 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) - Podcast discussing why the claim that earthquakes can be predicted is false.