Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

"Expert" tag??

What this article needs is not so much attention from any expert (let alone an expert in geology, which is not the appropriate field), as less attention from non-expert Randy in Boise types who have no knowledge of the subject and can't be bothered to study the sources, yet presume to "improve" the article according to their personal whims and feelings.

As a matter of fact, this article has had the attention of an expert. In 2013 I obtained the assistance of a noted seismologist, who kindly provided a review and guidance. (I am not naming him, because he doesn't want to be bothered by a bunch of Randy's from Wikipedia.) That the article has since decayed to a point that expert attention is once again required can be very easily and simply fixed: revert to a version from around November, 2013. Perhaps this one.

Otherwise, perhaps Serten would explain what particular points or places where he feels an expert's attention is needed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That particular tag is somewhat unfortunate. I've come across it on India articles and, while I can understand the intent, it does seem to go against the grain of how the project thinks it should operate. But that is a meta-discussion. As far as this particular article goes, you are the one who has most frequently portrayed the image of being an expert. That you have not got your way seems likely to be an issue relating to consensus, which is a different ballgame. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Unfortunate"? As in drive-by tagging by an editor who has no prior connection with this article, who seems to have followed me from another discussion where multiple editors have chided him for disruptive editing? I would call it spiteful, but I don't see there's any harm done. And the only reason I haven't added the expert tag myself is that it really is pointless to ask an expert for attention when non-experts will just hack away as they will.

What is unfortunate is your presumption of editing based on your sole opinion and judgment, without regard to consensus or even consultation, and your insistence on having things your way, even contrary to the expert sources. You have extensively removed everything that you did not understand, or that crossed your particular feelings. In fact, it is largely your editing that has gutted this article to the point where it needs expert attention.

I would point out that I have never claimed to be an expert per se, though I do know (as you have acknowledged) much more about this topic than you, and can claim to be more expert than you. My opinions on this topic are formed from expert sources; I am not aware that you have read any of the expert sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the tag "expert attention needed" serve to attract interested editors to contribute? 166.173.187.116 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but that's part of the problem: too many interested editors, but not enough expert editors. Or even editors interested enough to seriously study the topic. Unfortunately, the tag is unlikely to attract experts because of the bad repuation WP has amongst professionals. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sections on forecating as opposed to prediction

Given the distinction made in the introduction between "prediction" and "forecasting". It seems to me that the whole section on "seismic gaps" is all about forecasting. How can a seismic gap motivate a specific actionable prediction of an impending earthquake? If the section on gaps is not about prediction, per se, should it be removed? Otherwise, should the article be expanded to encompass the more general notion of forecasting? 166.137.136.118 (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently, earthquake forecasting redirects to this article, so it would make sense to either create a new article on that specific subject and move the relevant bits to there or have a separate section in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The material in the section on "trends" could very naturally serve as part of a discussion on forecasting, or, even, time-dependent forecasting. 12.160.33.3 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Basic error here: the "Trends" section is not about forecasting. It is about a class of possible prediction methods that tend to morph towards forecasting. At this point there are no sections on forecasting.

Where the seismic gap model makes a probabilistic assessment over a broad range of time it is indeed more like a forecast than a prediction of the next notable earthquake. However, the seismic gap model is very specific in regards of location (the gap) and magnitude of the anticipated event; in that regard is more like a prediction. If this is removed on the basis of the probablistic nature of one parameter, then logically the Parkfield prediction should also be removed as it was also probabilistic in regard of time. The absence of such a notable prediction would, of course, indicate a serious omission in the article's coverage, just as not including sesimic gaps would suggest incomplete coverage to anyone with any knowledge of the subject.

The same could be said for the other approaches described under "Trends": they all merge into forecasting, but leave a gaping hole if removed from "prediction". But if you want to remove all of that material, sure, have at it. This article is so incomplete that one more hack won't make much difference.

Could the article be expanded to cover both aspects? Sure, but that would require discussion of statistical methods (such as Sitush is so allergic to) and much expansion of an article some editors think is already too big. Better to have separate articles, even if there is some overlap. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Development of algorithm of the short-term forecast http://alexars.ru/ 77.35.224.246 (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

San Andreas

I just read that Parkfield predicted an earthquake to happen around 1988, no later than 1993, but then it says nothing happened until 2004, a minor earthquake at that..this is confusing to me because of course as we all know there was the San Francisco earthquake in 1989 and then one in Los Angeles in the early 1990's which were both very major...are these not considered part of their prediction or am I missing something? Because if I am not, then that section should be fixed with the correct info. Antonio el Bayamon Cagueno Zacatecas Martin (Aca) 06:35, 3 November, 2015 (UTC)

The prediction was just for the Parkfield segment of the San Andreas, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was on a different segment and the 1994 Northridge earthquake was a blind thrust earthquake not on the San Andreas. I've tweaked the language of that section to hopefully make that clearer. Mikenorton (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Earthquake forecast

Can someone add http://seismo.info in forecast secion? Thank you 178.73.210.76 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why? That site ("chartered by HM the King of Bosnia") is promoting something called Hyperresonance Unifiying Theory, which is utterly WP:FRINGE/PS. It claims exactly one success (in Nov. 2011), though I couldn't find any details. That site is junk, and warrants no mention on WP. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Because its from a scientist. Why are you insulting him are you a scientist? This looks no junk to me: http://seismo.info/images/plots/plot_JVE_OctNov2015.png 178.73.210.88 (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What you'll need, but very much doubt that you will get, is an independent source reviewing these 'forecasts' and finding them meaningful - fully agree with JJ on this one. Mikenorton (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

He also claims 100% accuracy, not just "one success". I don't need to do anything as its already peer reviewed: http://seismo.info/#science. Or is that not good enough to such a globally admired scientific authority as Wikipedia? 178.73.210.88 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"He" being the self-appointed "HM the King of Bosnia"? If you have no sense of how ridiculous Omerbashich's various claims are, you are too ridiculous to talk with. Or possibly a sock puppet. (I've mentioned this at SPI.) For everyone else, note that we have already been through "hyperresonance" (see archive); it is totally junk. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow! And all I suggested was a peer reviewed addition that looked amazing to a seasoned chemist. A link to ad hominem attacks on a scientist by amateurs like you proves nothing. Also, I don't care if he uses his birthright to declare himself Emperor of China, though I do find it interesting. My suggestion is about peer reviewed science. Can you counter his peer reviewed science with other peer reviewed science that disproves his? Even fringe science is useful until confirmed or disputed by other peer reviewed science. 178.73.210.76 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of peer review at the link you provided. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mention? I pointed at publications in peer reviewed journals. 178.73.210.88 (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What publications? All you have pointed to was a self-promotional site by someone who calls himself the King of Bosnia, and incidentally claims to have discovered "that quantum physics phenomena are mainly due to secondary, resonant effects of the Moon (tides) against the Earth", thereby confirming that "quantum physics is bogus"), and .. well, just look at his site for the many incredible things he claims. His reputation (and yours) is belied by his own incredible claims. (And you should read about ad hominem more carefully.)

You have not shown any peer-reviewed science. On the other hand, If you took the trouble to read the article you would find several reviews cited (e.g., Geller 1999, and ICEF 2011) that don't even mention "hyperresonance" - because it deserves no mention. It is a periennial favorite among the the pseudo-science crowd (e.g., see The Jupiter Effect) but has no standing with seismologists. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Links to the man's peer reviewed science are above, not going to repeat myself. And not going to re-address your ad hominem. As to your references: from what I can see without any reading, they both predate his hyperresonance paper, so how could they even know of it, let alone decide if it deserves mention? You have no clue what we're talking about here, do you. 178.73.210.113 (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That O. coins a new name does not make the concept new. There have been multiple invocations of planetary alignments as precipating earthquakes, including The Jupiter Effect in 1974, and Iben Browning in 1990. (You really should read the article.) I believe Spence et al. 1993 cites the definite refutation of planetary alignments. If this was truly a new theory, and truly was, as claimed, 100% accurate (that in itself should raise suspicion) it still would not warrant mention here until there it is accepted by the scientific community. And in that case (see WP:WEIGHT) it would be "easy to name prominent adherents. You haven't. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what Jupiter effect has to do with any of this. You're again confused. Finally, "accepted" has no meaning/relevance here since science is neither democracy nor beauty pageant the last time I checked. If there are new scientific (peer reviewed like his) facts in science that are relevant to an article, we're free to add those, as I proposed here. Quite simple. 178.73.210.88 (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that this "hyperresonance theory" you advocate including is all about planetary alignments, right? You also understand that Jupiter is not only a planet, but also the largest planet in the solar system, with two and a half times the mass of all the other planets combined? And that this notion of planetary triggering of earthquakes is entirely rejected by the experts? I have to ask because you are being quite obtuse. E.g., you say that '"accepted" has no meaning/relevance here', but you have blithely over looked that what I said - accepted by the scientific community - is entirely relevant here, as that is the key criterion for adding anything. (Democracy and beauty pageants having nothing to do with it.) In summary, we are not "free to add" any alleged "new facts", and certainly not any recycled theoretical garbage. As I said before, you have no clue what you are talking about, and your comments are becoming tendentious. Before coming back here please do read about WP:WEIGHT. Better yet, don't come back. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you just credit yourself with my words to you (2 comments above) "You have no clue what we're talking about here, do you"? That's beyond hilarious. Back to the point: you can include references which refute his theory if you like. By the by: Wikipedia is not a place for scientific debates; you can only add pertaining references and counter-references, not your point of view/ad hominem. 178.73.210.113 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1) Both Mike Norton and I are scientists, and we agree with J. Johnson (whose identity I do not know) that this theory does not have the scientific support to be included in this article. (2) The 'Literature' listed on the seismo.info website is almost entirely NOT peer-reviewed. A couple of the relevant papers by Omerbashich are published in the 'Journal of the European Royal Society', which is not only not well-known, but also affiliated with the organization at seismo.info. That makes *independent* peer review pretty much impossible. (3) Statisticians have been trying to find a relationship between tidal forces and earthquakes for centuries, and modern data shows absolutely no correlation between celestial alignments and earthquake occurrence or magnitude. In addition, modern geophysicists have tried to justify resonances as earthquake triggers, and ended up proving the exact opposite. Repeatedly. (4) If this method worked in its current state, we (scientists) would all be using it by now. *Any* statistically significant prediction (or 'anti-prediction') is pretty darn exciting to seismologists. Such a successful method would be on the front of multiple journals almost instantaneously. So far, there is no indication that the predictions on this website are statistically better than guessing. That's why these people haven't published any papers demonstrating how awesome their results are in legitimate peer-reviewed literature.Elriana (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. You're "countering" another scientist's claims with argument from authority instead of scientific evidence -- seriously? Now I'm becoming suspicious. And since I'm a scientist too, I'm calling your bluff. 77.238.217.1 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What "bluff"? You are talking nonsense. Seriously.

BTW, you should take a closer look at Argument from authority, which states that it ... can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert" [emphasis added]. Note the contingency! I don't know who you are, whether you qualify as a "scientist" in any sense of the word, but Elriana not only appears to be a real scientist, she also shows expertise on this topic. Likewise for Mikenorton and RockMagnetist. What ever very thin claim Omerbashich might have for passing as a scientist, he most definitely has no expertise, and no credibility, as an expert on earthquakes.

If you disagree with the arguments Elriana presents the scientific approach (this has to be explained to you??) would be to present countervailing evidence. There does not seem to be any. Certainly not enough to satisfy the criterion set at WP:DUE. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a Wikipedia "peer review" aka blah-blah. Still no real peer reviewed sources? Yeap, bluff. 77.238.218.228 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I only brought up the fact that several of us are scientists because of the earlier comment, "Because its from a scientist. Why are you insulting him are you a scientist?"

I do not need to cite any references to point out that the 'literature' on the website we have been discussing is not peer-reviewed in a reputable journal. You (and anyone else) can see that for yourself. Just look at the list. As for the relationship between seismo.info and the "European Royal Society", the seismo.info logo is actually on the main website (http://theroyalsociety.eu/). Omerbashich is significantly involved in the existence of both entities. So I would not consider anything published in one place about the theories/data on the other website to be "independently peer-reviewed". That's just not possible when the two organizations are so closely related. (Yes, there are examples of such conflict of interest cropping up in many better-known journals, but that's why the reputable ones have procedures for removing such conflicts, and for doing so in a way that is transparent to the reader.) Find me an independent source that reviews these forecasts, and I'll go dig more into the science. As it stands, all I see are some astronomical charts and undocumented claims without the rigorous statistics and independent documentation that would make any data scientifically meaningful.Elriana (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

More Wikipedia "peer review". Hopefully you are done with empty talk now? That sure doesn't make you look like a scientist. 77.238.213.29 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't trouble yourself too much about this joker. Say what he will, he hasn't made any case for including this material. And if it gets added anyway there is a solid basis for removing it. I note that this IP address geolocates to Sarajevo, so there is a chance it's HM himself. This conversation has been entirely a waste of time, and it's probably time to shut off the air. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The case is made because there simply is a sciencist with a theory how to predict earthquakes. It was peer reviewed in reality, not like Wikipedia "peer review" here. You can present peer reviewed papers against theory. About me: I just joined this Wikipedia "peer review" but I find it funny that you already think there is only 1 scientist in Sarajevo or vicinity who knows about this. All (2) Nobel laureates from ex-Yugoslavia were born here - it's something in the air, as we say. You are funnier, I admit. 77.238.213.29 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you're much funnier than me: you seem to think that living in the same city with the mothers of two Nobel laureates makes you a scientist. Ha ha ha. (My apologies to everyone else, I just couldn't resist.) More seriously, Wikipedia doesn't do peer review, here, or any where else. But do tell us more about your work. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How old are you, ten? 77.238.213.29 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind that. Tell us, please, just what kind of scientist are you? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Or nine? 77.238.218.82 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Both of you please stop this inappropriate exchange, or move it to your own talk pages if you're enjoying it. I can assure you no one else is. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

NOAA electron flux and earthquakes

---

Need to review reports that correlate earthquakes with NOAA satellite electron flux studies and earthquakes. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/2/9/2170 and “First evidence for correlations between electron fluxes measured by NOAA-POES satellites and large seismic vents” j.nuclphysbps.2013.09.002/doi:10.1016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.36.39 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I reviewed it. It is about first evidence for possible correlations. Nothing about predicting, or even forecasting, earthquakes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge, as Earthquake sensitive has been deleted. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I propose that Earthquake sensitive be merged into this. The 'Notable predictions' section in particular will need the most work - all should be put in the voice of Orey, and summarized into a sentence or two. It doesn't merit its own article; so much overlap. Support noted here. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No way. Earthquake sensitive is entirely paranormal, that has no place in this article per WP:FRINGE.

Also, your claim of support is overly hopeful. The entirety of Ceranthor's comment, at User_talk:Ceranthor#Proposed deletion of Earthquake sensitive, is: "I'm certainly not responsible for the current state of the article, so that's fine by me.". Note that I, too, am "entirely fine" with deletion of Earthquake sensitive, but not for merging it here. Well, I could see a small stub explaining what a "earthquake sensitive" is, and that it is fringe, but not much more. And certainly not here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"No way."? You don't "WP:OWN" this article, though you are still acting as if you do, I see. Good evidence that people don't change. This whole article is, like Flat Earth, about fringe beliefs. Are you "entirely fine" with deletion of Flat Earth? I see no consistency. Any other views out there?--Elvey^(t•c) 21:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside questions of the quality of the article, if there is anything of value I think a better place for it would be Precognition. This article describes serious (albeit unsuccessful) scientific efforts to predict earthquakes. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey: "No way" per the Wikipedia principle of WP:FRINGE, and especially WP:PROFRINGE; see also the comment on fringe theories at WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight. (I remind you that this is a policy with which, as you recently told another editor: you should be familiar and must respect.") The material at Earthquake sensitive is blatant promotion of a view (and even of a particular book) that is "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field", and therefore does not belong in Wikipedia.

That you have not addressed this issue, that you have no better response than to make a personal attack and misrepresent my view (as well as Ceranthor's comment) to create a strawman argument shows the complete meritlessness of your proposal. It also displays your typical incivility and tendency to a battleground attitude that deters the involvement of others. If that is the way you are going to go this discussion might as well be closed now. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you two have a history. I suggest that you both step away from this discussion for a while. Now that it is a normal merge discussion instead of a PROD, there's no hurry to decide it. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I could understand mention of the claims of 'earthquake sensitivity' being mentioned, briefly, in this article. However, such coverage would need to be subject to the same standards for inclusion and analysis as every other method. Scientists have documented the response of animals to P-waves, for example. But the claim in the Earthquake sensitive article that the "causes of human sensitivity to earthquakes are similar to the causes of earthquake sensitivity in animals" and that these are related to the piezioelectric effect on a tectonic scale, is both un-cited, and unsupported by anything I have ever read in the scientific literature (and I've looked). At best, physical mechanisms for human earthquake sensitivity are currently speculative and should be treated as such. The piezioelectric explanation has problems because the earthquake is the release of stress that builds up over very long periods of time. The stress state a month before the earthquake shouldn't be dramatically different than that a day or an hour before. (If you want references for this, I'll try to go dig them up again, but it's basic physics.) Radon and ionospheric effects are already mentioned in the article as stands. Adding that these (non-uniform and inconsistent as far as we can tell) precursors might affect humans and lead to stories about human earthquake 'sensitivity' would be acceptable if properly cited. Elriana (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I also see no 'notable predictions' that meet this article's current requirements that notability is either because of scientific significance or public notoriety. The examples listed for earthquake sensitivity are all anecdotal, and show no evidence that the general public took notice. The one regarding the eruption of Mount St Helens is also somewhat off-topic.Elriana (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that Earthquake sensitive has been tagged for deletion (discussion). So there could be nothing to merge, making this discussion moot. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Might as well just wait. The deletion discussion probably won't last long, and if the outcome is delete then closing this discussion will be uncontroversial. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake sensitive now being zero, there's nothing to merge. And Elvey seems fully involved at ANI. Is it time to close this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Coming up on 30 days, I note that Elvey (the proposer) has presented no arguments for merging, while Elriana and I have presented arguments against merging, with no other discussion on the matter. While the proposal to merge would seem moot for lack of anything to merge, to avoid any subsequent confusion I formally object to the proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of the process is that, since we don't have unanimous agreement, we would need to ask an uninvolved outsider to close. Or we can just let the discussion die a natural death. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The guidance at WP:MERGECLOSE is oriented mostly about how to proceed with a merger. However, at the bottom of the "General advice" box it says (emphasis added): "If there is a consensus against the merger, or, for older proposals, if there is no consensus or no discussion and you don't believe it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags, and, if necessary, close any discussion." Although Elvey proposed a merger, he never discussed why (just fulminated against me), whereas Elriana and I have both provided arguments (unchallenged) against a merger. So this could be seen as no discussion (argument) in support, or consensus against, or (at best, even if at this late date if anyone chimed in) as no consensus; merger is definitely not appropriate. (As well as no longer possible.) Letting the discussion die is fine, but the tag does need to be removed. You are essentially uninvolved in the discussion, so I say give it a shot. If anyone objects, fine, we can still ask for an admin.

Note that "After closing the merger proposal discussion" the proposed source page's talk page is supposed to be templated with the result of the discussion. This is going to be a mite difficult, the source page {Earthquake sensitive) having been deleted. Typical WP muddle, so we do what we can, and muddle on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go ahead and close. If someone objects, they can feel free to reopen it - although I hope they will provide a good rationale for doing so. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.