• • • Earthquake prediction is a branch of the science of concerned with the specification of the time, location, and of future within stated limits, and particularly 'the determination of parameters for the next strong earthquake to occur in a region. Earthquake prediction is sometimes distinguished from, which can be defined as the probabilistic assessment of general earthquake hazard, including the frequency and magnitude of damaging earthquakes in a given area over years or decades. Prediction can be further distinguished from, which upon detection of an earthquake, provide a real-time warning of seconds to neighboring regions that might be affected. 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. Demonstrably successful predictions of large earthquakes have not occurred and the few claims of success are controversial. For example, the most famous claim of a successful prediction is that alleged for the.

Depending on whether you are playing as Paloma Hernandez–the victim–or Victoria McPherson–the investigator–you alternate between survival and investigation. Mega uptobox uploaded 1fichier turbobit torrent. Still Life 2 pc game. Skidrow reloaded games crack codex flt skydrow. All links are interchangeable, you can. Inject life into your cloud-hosted applications: 5 best practices to boost end-user experience. Feel as though the performance of your cloud-hosted applications has.

A later study said that there was no valid short-term prediction. Extensive searches have reported many possible earthquake precursors, but, so far, such precursors have not been reliably identified across significant spatial and temporal scales. While part of the scientific community hold that, taking into account non-seismic precursors and given enough resources to study them extensively, prediction might be possible, most scientists are pessimistic and some maintain that earthquake prediction is inherently impossible. See also: Predictions are deemed significant if they can be shown to be successful beyond random chance.

Therefore, methods of are used to determine the probability that an earthquake such as is predicted would happen anyway (the ). The predictions are then evaluated by testing whether they correlate with actual earthquakes better than the null hypothesis. In many instances, however, the statistical nature of earthquake occurrence is not simply homogeneous. Clustering occurs in both space and time. In southern California about 6% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are 'followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km.' In central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 48 hours and 30 km.

While such statistics are not satisfactory for purposes of prediction (giving ten to twenty false alarms for each successful prediction) they will skew the results of any analysis that assumes that earthquakes occur randomly in time, for example, as realized from a. It has been shown that a 'naive' method based solely on clustering can successfully predict about 5% of earthquakes; 'far better than 'chance'. The Dilemma: To Alarm? Or Not to Alarm? 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. E.g., it has been reported that members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences were purged for 'having ignored scientific predictions of the disastrous Tangshan earthquake of summer 1976.' Following the L'Aquila earthquake of 2009, seven scientists and technicians in Italy were convicted of manslaughter, but not so much for failing to predict the (where some 300 people died) as for giving undue assurance to the populace – one victim called it 'anaesthetizing' – that there would not be a serious earthquake, and therefore no need to take precautions.

But warning of an earthquake that does not occur also incurs a cost: not only the cost of the emergency measures themselves, but of civil and economic disruption. False alarms, including alarms that are canceled, also undermine the credibility, and thereby the effectiveness, of future warnings. In 1999 it was reported () that China was introducing 'tough regulations intended to stamp out ‘false’ earthquake warnings, in order to prevent panic and mass evacuation of cities triggered by forecasts of major tremors.' This was prompted by 'more than 30 unofficial earthquake warnings. In the past three years, none of which has been accurate.' The acceptable trade-off between missed quakes and false alarms depends on the societal valuation of these outcomes.

The rate of occurrence of both must be considered when evaluating any prediction method. In a 1997 study of the cost-benefit ratio of earthquake prediction research in Greece, Stathis Stiros suggested that even a (hypothetical) excellent prediction method would be of questionable social utility, because 'organized evacuation of urban centers is unlikely to be successfully accomplished', while 'panic and other undesirable side-effects can also be anticipated.'

He found that earthquakes kill less than ten people per year in Greece (on average), and that most of those fatalities occurred in large buildings with identifiable structural issues. Therefore, Stiros stated that it would be much more cost-effective to focus efforts on identifying and upgrading unsafe buildings. Since the death toll on Greek highways is more than 2300 per year on average, he argued that more lives would also be saved if Greece's entire budget for earthquake prediction had been used for street and highway safety instead. Prediction methods [ ] Earthquake prediction is an immature science—it has not yet led to a successful prediction of an earthquake from first physical principles. Research into methods of prediction therefore focus on empirical analysis, with two general approaches: either identifying distinctive precursors to earthquakes, or identifying some kind of geophysical trend or pattern in seismicity that might precede a large earthquake. Precursor methods are pursued largely because of their potential utility for short-term earthquake prediction or forecasting, while 'trend' methods are generally thought to be useful for forecasting, long term prediction (10 to 100 years time scale) or intermediate term prediction (1 to 10 years time scale).

Precursors [ ] An earthquake precursor is an anomalous phenomenon that might give effective warning of an impending earthquake. Reports of these – though generally recognized as such only after the event – number in the thousands, some dating back to antiquity. There have been around 400 reports of possible precursors in scientific literature, of roughly twenty different types, running the gamut from to zoology. None have been found to be reliable for the purposes of earthquake prediction. In the early 1990, the IASPEI solicited nominations for a Preliminary List of Significant Precursors. Forty nominations were made, of which 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.' In particular, many cases of reported precursors are contradictory, lack a measure of amplitude, or are generally unsuitable for a rigorous statistical evaluation. Published results are biased towards positive results, and so the rate of false negatives (earthquake but no precursory signal) is unclear.

Animal behavior [ ] For centuries there have been anecdotal accounts of anomalous animal behavior preceding and associated with earthquakes. In cases where animals display unusual behavior some tens of seconds prior to a quake, it has been suggested they are responding to the.

These travel through the ground about twice as fast as the that cause most severe 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 do not notice. Another confounding factor of accounts of unusual phenomena is skewing due to ': 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.

Dilatancy–diffusion [ ] In the 1970s the dilatancy–diffusion hypothesis was highly regarded as providing a physical basis for various phenomena seen as possible earthquake precursors. It was based on 'solid and repeatable evidence' from laboratory experiments that highly stressed crystalline rock experienced a change in volume, or dilatancy, which causes changes in other characteristics, such as seismic velocity and electrical resistivity, and even large-scale uplifts of topography. It was believed this happened in a 'preparatory phase' just prior to the earthquake, and that suitable monitoring could therefore warn of an impending quake. Detection of variations in the relative velocities of the primary and secondary seismic waves – expressed as Vp/Vs – as they passed through a certain zone was the basis for predicting the 1973 Blue Mountain Lake (NY) and 1974 Riverside (CA) quake. Although these predictions were informal and even trivial, their apparent success was seen as confirmation of both dilatancy and the existence of a preparatory process, leading to what were subsequently called 'wildly over-optimistic statements' that successful earthquake prediction 'appears to be on the verge of practical reality.' However, many studies questioned these results, and the hypothesis eventually languished.

Subsequent study showed it 'failed for several reasons, largely associated with the validity of the assumptions on which it was based', including the assumption that laboratory results can be scaled up to the real world. Another factor was the bias of retrospective selection of criteria.

Other studies have shown dilatancy to be so negligible that concluded: 'The concept of a large-scale 'preparation zone' indicating the likely magnitude of a future event, remains as ethereal as the ether that went undetected in the experiment.' 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 likely breakthrough when Russian seismologists reported observing such changes (later discounted. ) 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 phenomenon near in led to a successful albeit informal prediction in 1973, and it was credited for predicting the 1974 Riverside (CA) quake. However, additional successes have not followed, and it has been suggested that these predictions were a flukes. A V p/ V s anomaly was the basis of a 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, while an analysis of two earthquakes in California found that the variations reported were more likely caused by other factors, including retrospective selection of data. 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, produced by radioactive decay of the trace amounts of uranium present in most rock. Radon is useful as a potential earthquake predictor because it is radioactive and thus easily detected, and its short (3.8 days) makes radon levels 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. Electromagnetic anomalies [ ] Observations of electromagnetic disturbances and their attribution to the earthquake failure process go back as far as the of 1755, but practically all such observations prior to the mid-1960s are invalid because the instruments used were sensitive to physical movement. Since then various anomalous electrical, electric-resistive, and magnetic phenomena have been attributed to precursory stress and strain changes that precede earthquakes, raising hopes for finding a reliable earthquake precursor.

While a handful of researchers have gained much attention with either theories of how such phenomena might be generated, claims of having observed such phenomena prior to an earthquake, no such phenomena has been shown to be an actual precursor. A 2011 review found the 'most convincing' electromagnetic precursors to be ULF magnetic anomalies, such as the Corralitos event (discussed below) recorded before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. However, it is now believed that observation was a system malfunction. Study of the closely monitored 2004 Parkfield earthquake found no evidence of precursory electromagnetic signals of any type; further study showed that earthquakes with magnitudes less than 5 do not produce significant transient signals. The International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) considered the search for useful precursors to have been unsuccessful. See also: * VAN seismic electric signals [ ] The most touted, and most criticized, claim of an electromagnetic precursor is the of physics professors Panayiotis Varotsos, Kessar Alexopoulos and Konstantine Nomicos (VAN) of the. 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 seven hours beforehand.

In 1984 they claimed there was a 'one-to-one correspondence' between SES and earthquakes – that is, that ' every sizable EQ is preceded by an SES and inversely every SES is always followed by an EQ the magnitude and the of which can be reliably predicted' – the SES appearing between 6 and 115 hours before the earthquake. As proof of their method they claimed a series of successful predictions.

Although their report was 'saluted by some as a major breakthrough' – one enthusiastic supporter (Uyeda) was reported as saying 'VAN is the biggest invention since the time of Archimedes' – among seismologists it was greeted by a 'wave of generalized skepticism'. In 1996 a paper VAN submitted to the journal was given an unprecedented public peer-review by a broad group of reviewers, with the paper and reviews published in a special issue; the majority of reviewers found the methods of VAN to be flawed. Additional criticism was raised the same year in a public debate between some of the principals. A primary criticism was that the method is geophysically implausible and scientifically unsound. Additional objections included the demonstrable falsity of the claimed one-to-one relationship of earthquakes and SES, the unlikelihood of a precursory process generating signals stronger than any observed from the actual earthquakes, and the very strong likelihood that the signals were man-made.

Further work in Greece has tracked SES-like 'anomalous transient electric signals' back to specific human sources, and found that such signals are not excluded by the criteria used by VAN to identify SES. The validity of the VAN method, and therefore the predictive significance of SES, was based primarily on the empirical claim of demonstrated predictive success. Numerous weaknesses have been uncovered in the VAN methodology, and in 2011 the ICEF concluded that the prediction capability claimed by VAN could not be validated. Most seismologists consider VAN to have been 'resoundingly debunked'. Further information: 1981: Lima, Peru (Brady) [ ] In 1976 Dr.

Brian Brady, a physicist then at the, 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. 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 January 26, 1981. On 27 January 1981, after reviewing the Brady-Spence prediction, the U.S.

(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 July 6, August 18 and September 24, 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 June 28 (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. 1985–1993: Parkfield, U.S. (Bakun-Lindh) [ ] The ' prediction experiment' was the most heralded scientific earthquake prediction ever.

It was based on an observation that the Parkfield segment of the breaks regularly with a moderate earthquake of about M 6 every several decades: 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966. More particularly, 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 (NEPEC) evaluated this, and concurred. 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: '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 the Parkfield segment of the fault, 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: 1983–1995: Greece (VAN) [ ] In 1981, the 'VAN' group, headed by Panayiotis Varotsos, said that they found a relationship between earthquakes and 'seismic electric signals' (SES). In 1984 they presented a table of 23 earthquakes from 19 January 1983 to 19 September 1983, of which they claimed to have successfully predicted 18 earthquakes.

Other lists followed, such as their 1991 claim of predicting six out of seven earthquakes with M s ≥ 5.5 in the period of 1 April 1987 through 10 August 1989, or five out of seven earthquakes with M s ≥ 5.3 in the overlapping period of 15 May 1988 to 10 August 1989, In 1996 they published a 'Summary of all Predictions issued from January 1st, 1987 to June 15, 1995', amounting to 94 predictions. Matching this against a list of 'All earthquakes with M S(ATH)' and within geographical bounds including most of Greece they come up with a list of 14 earthquakes they should have predicted. Here they claim ten successes, for a success rate of 70%, but also a false alarm rate of 89%. The VAN predictions have been criticized on various grounds, including being geophysically implausible, 'vague and ambiguous', that 'VAN’s ‘predictions’ never specify the windows, and never state an unambiguous expiration date [and thus] VAN are not making earthquake predictions in the first place', failing to satisfy prediction criteria, and retroactive adjustment of parameters. It has also been objected that no one 'can confidently state, except in the most general terms, what the VAN hypothesis is, because the authors of it have nowhere presented a thorough formulation of it.' A critical review of 14 cases where VAN claimed 10 successes showed only one case where an earthquake occurred within the prediction parameters.

The VAN predictions not only fail to do better than chance, but show 'a much better association with the events which occurred before them', according to Mulargia and Gasperini. Other early reviews found that the VAN results, when evaluated by definite parameters, were statistically significant.

Both positive and negative views on VAN predictions from this period were summarized in the 1996 book 'A Critical Review of VAN' edited by Sir James Lighthill and in a debate issue presented by the journal that was focused on the statistical significance of the VAN method. VAN had the opportunity to reply to their critics in those review publications. In 2011, the ICEF reviewed the 1996 debate, and concluded that the optimistic SES prediction capability claimed by VAN could not be validated. A crucial issue is the large and often indeterminate parameters of the predictions, such that some critics say these are not predictions, and should not be recognized as such. Much of the controversy with VAN arises from this failure to adequately specify these parameters. Some of their telegrams include predictions of two distinct earthquake events, such as (typically) one earthquake predicted at 300 km 'N.W' of Athens, and another at 240 km 'W', 'with magnitutes [sic] 5,3 and 5,8', with no time limit. VAN has disputed the 'pessimistic' conclusions of their critics, but the critics have not relented.

It was suggested that VAN failed to account for clustering of earthquakes, or that they interpreted their data differently during periods of greater seismic activity. VAN has been criticized on several occasions for causing public panic and widespread unrest. This has been exacerbated by the broadness of their predictions, which cover large areas of Greece (up to 240 kilometers across, and often pairs of areas), much larger than the areas actually affected by earthquakes of the magnitudes predicted (usually several tens of kilometers across). Magnitudes are similarly broad: a predicted magnitude of '6.0' represents a range from a benign magnitude 5.3 to a broadly destructive 6.7. Coupled with indeterminate time windows of a month or more, such predictions 'cannot be practically utilized' to determine an appropriate level of preparedness, whether to curtail usual societal functioning, or even to issue public warnings. As an instance of the quandary public officials face: in 1995 Professor Varotsos reportedly filed a complaint with the public prosecutor accusing government officials of negligence in not responding to his supposed prediction of an earthquake.

A government official was quoted as saying 'VAN's prediction was not of any use' in that it covered two-thirds of the area of Greece. 1989: Loma Prieta, U.S.

[ ] The (epicenter in the northwest of ) caused significant damage in the of California. The (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. Reviewed 18 papers (with 26 forecasts) dating from 1910 'that variously offer or relate to scientific forecasts of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.' (In this case no distinction is made between a forecast, which is limited to a probabilistic estimate of an earthquake happening over some time period, and a more specific prediction.

) None of these forecasts can be rigorously tested due to lack of specificity, and where a forecast does bracket the correct time and location, the window was so broad (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.

One debated prediction came from 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. When discussing success or failure of prediction for the Loma Prieta earthquake, some scientists argue that it did not occur on the (the focus of most of the forecasts), and involved (vertical) movement rather than (horizontal) movement, and so was not predicted.

Other scientists argue 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. Claimed to have predicted the Loma Prieta event, but (as will be seen in the next section) this claim has been rejected. Further information: (a scientist with a Ph.D.

Degree in zoology and training as a biophysicist, but no experience in geology, geophysics, or seismology) was an 'independent business consultant' who forecast long-term climate trends for businesses. He supported 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 were most at risk for a large earthquake. An area he mentioned frequently was the at the southeast corner of the state of, the site of three very large earthquakes in 1811–12, 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) 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.

A transcript of his talk in San Francisco on 10 October showed he had said: '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 in California. Though the AHWG report disproved both Browning's claims of prior success and the basis of his 'projection', it made little impact after a year of continued claims of a successful prediction. Browning's prediction received the 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 the news media. Nothing happened on 3 December, and Browning died of a heart attack seven months later. 2004 & 2005: Southern California, U.S. (Keilis-Borok) [ ] The algorithm (developed under the leadership of Dr.

At ) gained respect by the apparently successful predictions of the 2003 San Simeon and Hokkaido earthquakes. Great interest was therefore generated by the prediction in early 2004 of a 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 (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.

2009: L'Aquila, Italy (Giuliani) [ ]. Main article: At 03:32 on 6 April 2009, the region of central Italy was rocked by a magnitude M 6.3 earthquake. In the city of and surrounding area around 60,000 buildings collapsed or were seriously damaged, resulting in 308 deaths and 67,500 people left homeless. Around the same time, it was reported that Giampaolo Giuliani had predicted the earthquake, had tried to warn the public, but had been muzzled by the Italian government. Giampaolo Giuliani was a laboratory technician at the. As a hobby he had for some years been monitoring radon using instruments he had designed and built.

Prior to the L'Aquila earthquake he was unknown to the scientific community, and had not published any scientific work. He had been interviewed on 24 March 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 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 temblor, the largest to date.

On 27 March Giuliani warned the mayor of L'Aquila there could be an earthquake within 24 hours, and an earthquake M~2.3 occurred. On 29 March he made a second prediction.

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. Loudspeaker vans were used to warn the inhabitants of Sulmona to evacuate, with consequential panic. No quake ensued and Giuliano was cited for inciting public alarm and enjoined from making future public predictions. After the L'Aquila event Giuliani claimed that he had found alarming rises in radon levels just hours before. He said he had warned relatives, friends and colleagues on the evening before the earthquake hit.

He was subsequently interviewed by the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection, which found that Giuliani had not transmitted a valid prediction of the mainshock to the civil authorities before its occurrence. Difficulty or impossibility [ ] As the preceding examples show, the record of earthquake prediction has been disappointing. 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. 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,.

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 '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. See also [ ]. •, p. 1616, following, p. 2070), who in turn followed., §2.1) says: 'This definition has several defects which contribute to confusion and difficulty in prediction research.' In addition to specification of time, location, and magnitude, Allen suggested three other requirements: 4) indication of the author's confidence in the prediction, 5) the chance of an earthquake occurring anyway as a random event, and 6) publication in a form that gives failures the same visibility as successes., p. 1563) define prediction (in part) 'to be a formal rule where by the available space-time-seismic moment manifold of earthquake occurrence is significantly contracted.' See also, (p. 327), which distinguishes between predictions (as deterministic) and forecasts (as probabilistic).

Not all scientists distinguish 'prediction' and 'forecast', but it is useful, and will be observed in this article. •, p. 1617;, §2.3, p. • (, p. 328), (, p. 344) • () •, Summary. '.at the present stage, the general view on short-term prediction is overly pessimistic. There are reasons for this pessimism because mere conventional seismological approach is not efficient for this aim. Overturning this situation is possible only through multi-disciplinary science. Despite fairly abundant circumstantial evidence, pre-seismic EM signals have not yet been adequately accepted as real physical quantities.'

This was based on data from Southern California. Additional details in.

• However, Mileti and Sorensen have argued that the extent of panic related to public disaster forecasts, and the 'cry wolf' problem with respect to repeated false alarms, have both been overestimated, and can be mitigated through appropriate communications from the authorities.. •, p. 48 and through out. • • • The IASPEI Sub-Commission for Earthquake Prediction defined a precursor as 'a quantitatively measurable change in an environmental parameter that occurs before mainshocks, and that is thought to be linked to the preparation process for this mainshock.' , §3.1 •, p. 429, §3. • E.g.,, in De natura animalium, book 11, commenting on the destruction of in 373 BC, but writing five centuries later.

Has a more recent compilation •, p. 335. See also:, p. 348): 'The search for precursors has a checkered history, with no convincing successes.' , p. 723): 'The consistent failure to find reliable earthquake precursors.' No convincing evidence of diagnostic precursors.' •, p. 336;, p. 1204. •, pp. 30–32.

In an earlier study similar behavior was seen before storms., p. 687. • Subsequent diffusion of water back into the affected volume of rock is what leads to failure., p. 215;. •, pp. 333–334; see also and.

•, pp. 220–221, 226; see also. Additional references in, §2.4. For a fuller account of radon as an earthquake precursor see.

• Giampaolo Giuiliani's claimed prediction of the earthquake was based on monitoring of radon levels. See also, pp. 93–95. • See and for some history of these hopes. Neverwinter Nights 2 Toolset Steam more. •, paragraphs 1 and 32.

See also, p. S218 (no VAN-type SES observed) and ('no effects found that can be reasonably characterized as precursors'). •, Summary, p. •, described by, p. 32, and, §3.3.1, p. • Over time the claim was modified.

See for more details. Italicization from the original. •, Table 3, p. 117;;, Table 3, p. 341;, Table 3, p.

These will be examined in more detail. Table of contents available.

• The proceedings were published as A Critical Review of VAN (). See for a summary critique.

A short overview of the debate can be found in an exchange of letters in the June, 1998, issue of Physics Today. •, p. 1324;, p. 1365;;, p. 478. •, pp. 223, 236;;, p. 1301 •, p. 1365;, p. 2027. For example the VAN 'IOA' station was next to an antenna park, and the station at Pirgos, where most of the 1980s predictions were derived, was found to lie over the buried grounding grid of a military radio transmitter. VAN has not distinguished their 'seismic electric signals' from artificial electromagnetic noise or from radio-telecommunication and industrial sources.;, pp. 2025, 2028;.

• For example it has been shown that the VAN predictions are more likely to follow an earthquake than to precede one. It seems that where there have been recent shocks the VAN personnel are more likely to interpret the usual electrical variations as SES. The tendency for earthquakes to cluster then accounts for an increased chance of an earthquake in the rather broad prediction window. Other aspects of this will be discussed below. •, pp. 335–336.

•, p. 195 •, pp. 131–133;. •, p. 1467) called it 'encouraging'. • • • •, pp. 133–135 • • •, pp. 137–139 •, p. 22;, p. 329. • provides a clear explanation., §2.2 also provides a description of the 'self-organized criticality' (SOC) paradigm that is displacing the elastic rebound model. • • These include the type of rock and fault geometry. •;, p. 93, §2.2. Of course these were not the only earthquakes in this period.

The attentive reader will recall that, in seismically active areas, earthquakes of some magnitude happen fairly constantly. The 'Parkfield earthquakes' are either the ones noted in the historical record, or were selected from the instrumental record on the basis of location and magnitude., p. S399) and, pp. 211–212, 213) argue that the selection parameters can bias the statistics, and that sequences of four or six quakes, with different recurrence intervals, are also plausible. •, p. S408 say the claim of quasi-periodicity is 'baseless'. •, pp. 21,420;;;, §2.2, and references there;. See also the Nature debates.

• Young faults are expected to have complex, irregular surfaces, which impede slippage. In time these rough spots are ground off, changing the mechanical characteristics of the fault.;, p. 185.

• •, p. 284, §5.3.3;, pp. 21,419;, p. S404. •, pp. 21,419;;. • See details in, §2.4. • Kossobokov, V.G.; Romashkova, L.L.; Keilis-Borok, V. I.; Healy, J.H.

Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 111 (3–4): 187–196... • •, pp. 142–149. •, §2.1., chapter 12, provides a good description.

6 •, pp. 154–155. •, §4) show how suitable selection of parameters shows 'DMR': Decelerating Moment Release.

• E.g.:;, p. 265;;;, p. 543;, p. S332;;;;, pp. 335, 344;, p. 328. •, p. 266 provide a brief report. The report of the Haicheng Earthquake Study Delegation () has a fuller account., p. 779), after careful examination of the records, set the death toll at 2,041. • Raleigh et al.

(1977), quoted in, p 434. Geller has a whole section (§4.1) of discussion and many sources. See also, pp. • Quoted in, p. 2) describes some of circumstances attending to the practice of seismology at that time;, pp. 456–458 has additional observations.

• Measurement of an uplift has been claimed, but that was 185 km away, and likely surveyed by inexperienced amateurs., p. According to foreshocks were widely understood to precede a large earthquake, 'which may explain why various [local authorities] made their own evacuation decisions' (p. •, document 85, p.

• Quoted by, p. Copy of statement in, document 86, p. • The chairman of the NEPEC later complained to the Agency for International Development that one of its staff members had been instrumental in encouraging Brady and promulgating his prediction long after it had been scientifically discredited. See, document 146 (p. 201) and following. •, document 116, p. • John Filson, deputy chief of the USGS Office of Earthquake Studies, quoted by, p.

•, document 147, p. •, §6) describes some of the coverage. The most anticipated prediction ever is likely Iben Browning's 1990 New Madrid prediction (discussed below), but it lacked any scientific basis. • Near the small town of, roughly halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. •, 'How to Catch an Earthquake'. • Quoted by, p. 440. • It has also been argued that the actual quake differed from the kind expected (), and that the prediction was no more significant than a simpler null hypothesis ().

•, p. 117, Table 3. •, Table 3, p. 340) includes nine predictions (unnumbered) from 27 April 1987 to 28 April 1988, with a tenth prediction issued on 26 February 1987 mentioned in a footnote. Two of these earthquakes were excluded from table 3 on the grounds of having occurred in neighboring Albania. 333) includes 17 predictions (numbered) issued from 15 May 1988 to 23 July 1989.

A footnote mentions a missed (unpredicted) earthquake on 19 March 1989; all 17 entries show associated earthquakes, and presumably are thereby deemed to have been successful predictions. 345) is a continuation of Table 1 (p. 346) out to 30 November 1989, adding five additional predictions with associated earthquakes. • Table 1 in. •, Table 3, p. 'M S(ATH)' is the M S magnitude reported by the National Observatory of Athens (SI-NOA), or VAN's estimate of what that magnitude would be (p. These differ from the M S magnitudes reported by the USGS.

• Specifically, between 36° to 41° North latitude and 19° to 25° East longitude. They have suggested the success rate should be higher, as one of the missed quakes would have been predicted but for attendance at a conference, and in another case a 'clear SES' was recognized but a magnitude could not be determined for lack of operating stations. •, Table 1, p. • 10 successful predictions out of 12 issued (defining success as those that occurred within 22 days of the prediction, within 100 km of the predicted epicenter and with a magnitude difference (predicted minus true) rot greater than 0.7.

•, Nishizawa et al. 1993, and Uyeda 1991 [in Japanese]) •. •, pp. 335–336. •, p. 32;, p. 184 (ranges not given, or vague);, p. 32 ('large indetermination in the parameters');, p. 1372 ('falls short');, p. 1364 ('have never been fully specified');, p. 573 ('much too vague');, p. 1307 ('parameters not defined'). Discuss some specific cases in detail. Discusses this at length in §6 (pp. • Telegram 39, issued 1 September 1988, in, Fig.

See figure 26 (p. 344) for a similar telegram. See also telegrams 32 and 41 (figures 15 and 16, pages 115–116) in. This same pair of predictions is apparently presented as Telegram 10 in Table 1, p.

Text from several telegrams is presented in Table 2 (p. 54), and faxes of a similar character. • This pair of predictions was issued on 9/1/1988, and a similar pair of predictions was re-iterated on 9/30/1988, except that the predicted amplitudes were reduced to M(l)=5.0 and 5.3, respectively. In fact, an earthquake did occur approximately 240 km west of Athens, on, with magnitude Ms(ATH)=6.0, which would correspond to a local magnitude M(l) of 5.5., Table 3, p. • they also cite Hamada's claim of a 99.8% confidence level., p. 214) finds that this 'was based on the premise that 6 out of 12 telegrams' were in fact successful predictions, which is questioned., p. 1315) finds that in Shnirman et al.

'several variables. Have been modified to achieve the result.' , p. 98) mention other 'flaws such as overly generous crediting of successes, using strawman null hypotheses and failing to account for properly for a posteriori 'tuning' of parameters.' • 'From its very appearance in the early 1990s until today, the VAN group is the subject of sharp criticism from Greek seismologists' ().: 'panic overtook the general population' (Prigos, 1993)., p. ): 'causing widespread unrest and a sharp increase in tranquilizer drugs' (Athens, 1999).: 'great social uneasiness' (Patras, 2008)., p. 96): 'often caused widespread rumors, confusion and anxiety in Greece'., p. 352): issuance over the years of 'hundreds' of statements 'causing considerable concern among the Greek population.' • While some analyses have been done on the basis of a 100 km range (e.g.,, p. 205),, p. 339) claim credit for earthquakes within a radius of 120 km. •, p. 482., 6.4.2) notes that while Kobe was severely damaged by the 1995 M w 6.9 earthquake, damage in Osaka, only 30 km away, was relatively light. • VAN predictions generally do not specify the magnitude scale or precision, but they have generally claimed a precision of ±0.7.

•, pp. 36, 60, 72. • E. Free Download Film Korea The Heirs Episode 11 there. g.,, p. 327. •, Table 1, p. •, pp. B10–B11. B10, and figure 4, p.

B11, figure 5. •, §4.4) cites several authors to say 'it seems unreasonable to cite the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake as having fulfilled forecasts of a right-lateral strike-slip earthquake on the San Andreas Fault.' •, pp. B21–B22. • (USGS Circular 1083) is the most comprehensive, and most thorough, study of the Browning prediction, and appears to be the main source of most other reports.

In the following notes, where an item is found in this document the pdf pagination is shown in brackets. • A report on Browning's prediction cited over a dozen studies of possible tidal triggering of earthquakes, but concluded that 'conclusive evidence of such a correlation has not been found'., p. 10 [62]. It also found that Browning's identification of a particular high tide as triggering a particular earthquake 'difficult to justify'. • According to a note in Spence, et al.

4): 'Browning preferred the term projection, which he defined as determining the time of a future event based on calculation. He considered 'prediction' to be akin to tea-leaf reading or other forms of psychic foretelling.' See also Browning's own comment on p. • Including 'a 50/50 probability that the federal government of the U.S. Will fall in 1992.'

, p. 39 [47]. •, pp. 9–11 [17–19 (pdf)], and see various documents in Appendix A, including The Browning Newsletter for 21 November 1989 (p. •, p. iii [55].

Included in as part of Appendix B, pp. 45–66 [53–75]. •, p. 30 [72]. • Previously involved in a psychic prediction of an earthquake for North Carolina in 1975 (, p. 13 [21]), Stewart sent a 13 page memo to a number of colleagues extolling Browning's supposed accomplishments, including predicting Loma Prieta., p. 29 [37] • See throughout. •, p. 40 [48] (p. •;, pp. 145–146.

• The, p. 323) alludes to predictions made on 17 February and 10 March. 323, and see also p. • found 'no obvious successes'. •, p. 505) said: 'The results of efforts to develop earthquake prediction methods over the last 30 years have been disappointing: after many monographs and conferences and thousands of papers we are no closer to a working forecast than we were in the 1960s'. •, ' Nature debates'. More mature faults presumably slip more readily because they have been ground smoother and flatter. •, pp. 5696–7) argued that the characteristics of fault rupture on a given fault 'can be considered essentially constant through several seismic cycles'.

The expectation of a regular rate of occurrence that accounts for all other factors was rather disappointed by the lateness of the. •, p. 1616;, p. 517.

See also, p. 520, and especially, §9.1, 'Chaos, SOC, and predictability'. • 'Despite over a century of scientific effort, the understanding of earthquake predictability remains immature. This lack of understanding is reflected in the inability to predict large earthquakes in the deterministic short-term sense.'

Show map of Umbria Date 24 August 2016 ( 2016-08-24) Origin time 01:36:33 UTC Magnitude 6.2 ± 0.016 Depth 4 ± 1 km (2.49 ± 0.62 mi) Epicenter: Type Areas affected Max. Intensity Casualties 299 deaths ≈ 388 injured 4,500 An earthquake, measuring 6.2 ± 0.016 on the, hit on 24 August 2016 at 03:36:32 (01:36 ). Its was close to, with its at a depth of 4 ± 1 km, approximately 75 km (47 mi) southeast of and 45 km (28 mi) north of, in an area near the borders of the,, and regions. As of 15 November 2016, 299 people had been killed. Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • Background [ ] The central is one of the most seismically active areas in Italy. The Apennines mountain belt were formed in the to as a result of the ongoing of the beneath the, forming a. During the, gave way to, with the development of a zone of running along the crest of the mountain range.

The extension is a result of either subduction rollback or the opening of the. In the Central Apennines the zone of extension is about 30 km wide, closely matching the zone of observed extensional strain as shown by measurements.

Recent large earthquakes in this area have been caused by movement on SW- normal faults. This was the largest tremor since 2009, when an near in the Abruzzo region killed over 300 people and displaced about 65,000. Earthquake [ ] The earthquake was initially reported by to have occurred at a depth of approximately 5 km (3.1 mi), with a of 6.0 and epicentre in the of. The first reported an earthquake at a depth of 10.0 km (6.2 mi) with a magnitude of 6.4 M w and epicentre southeast of, but subsequently revised the magnitude to 6.2 M w.

The put the magnitude at 6.1. The discrepancies between the different estimates of the magnitude led INGV to explain in a blog post that they use a crustal velocity model specifically calibrated for Italy and give more weight to the seismometric stations situated close to the epicentre. Using global models, INGV further stated that it can reproduce the values reported by foreign agencies.

As of 30 August 2016, the initial earthquake was followed by at least 2,500. The tremor and a number of aftershocks were felt across the whole of central Italy (from to ), including, and. Rescuers during an operation in Amatrice. Early reports indicated severe damage in the town of, near the epicentre, and in and. Sergio Pirozzi, the mayor of, stated that 'Amatrice is not here anymore, half of the town is destroyed.' Photos of the destruction depicted a massive pile of rubble in the town's centre with only a few structures still standing on the outskirts.

It also cost an estimated economic loss between $1 billion to $11 billion. Cultural heritage [ ] In addition to the loss of human life, widespread destruction of is also reported.

In Amatrice, the facade and of the were destroyed, and the museum dedicated to the painter, student and companion of, collapsed. The earthquake also created cracks in the in.

The earthquake was so broad that authorities made structural tests on the as well, which was not damaged. The – a with frescoes by and that were partly destroyed by an – was declared safe after an extensive survey by the head restorer. Robot-assisted disaster response in Amatrice [ ] 3D computer models were used to help damage assessment of the and the. The data for building the models was collected by robots deployed by the European project. Two ground robots and one drone were used inside the San Francesco Basilica, one drone was used inside the Sant'Agostino church, and two drones were used on the outside of both churches. Controversies [ ] After the earthquake in Central Italy, the court of discovered that not all the buildings of those cities were constructed or renovated under the antiseismic law of 1974 in which it explained all the construction techniques of an earthquake resistant building. In fact, a family was killed that night by the rubble of a church that was not renovated under that law.

Similarly, the Romolo Capranica elementary school in Amatrice partially collapsed, even if in 2013 the town spent 160,000 euros in a operation that improved the building's seismic resistance, but wasn't enough to comply with 2012 earthquake standards in Italy. The investigation is ongoing to discover the causes that allowed buildings to become reduced to rubble instead of sustaining damage attributed to buildings following anti-seismic regulations, especially.

French satirical magazine published a cartoon depicting Italian earthquake victims as pasta dishes, causing 'shock and outrage.' October 2016 and January 2017 earthquakes [ ].

Main articles: and A magnitude 6.1 intraplate struck Italy 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) west of on 26 October at 9:18 p.m. The earthquake, initially considered an aftershock of the magnitude 6.2 earthquake in August, struck about 30 kilometres (19 mi) to the northwest of the August earthquake. The civil protection, however, estimated the consequences less dramatically than feared. According to official data, a man died because he had suffered a heart attack as a result of the quake. On 30 October, an earthquake larger than the 24 August shock struck Norcia with a USGS moment magnitude of 6.6.

A magnitude 5.3 earthquake struck 25 km northwest of on 18 January at 10:25 local time at a depth of 9 km. A stronger, 5.7 tremor hit the same epicentral area at 11:14 local time. A third earthquake of preliminary magnitude of 5.6 struck 11 minutes later. At 14:33 local time, the fourth tremor of a magnitude 5.2 was registered. These earthquakes were followed by multiple aftershocks.