Editor: Jim Berkland
1175 Chauvet Rd. Box 1926
Glen Ellen, CA. 95442
(707) 935-6512 ::: FAX (707) 935-6639
|
Editor: Jim Berkland 1175 Chauvet Rd. Box 1926 Glen Ellen, CA. 95442 (707) 935-6512 ::: FAX (707) 935-6639 |
|
|
12 Monthly Issues Back issues $4.00 |
 1-900-844 JOLT $1.49 per minute QuakeLine is for S.F. Bay Area Only |
Geologist |
Hello Folks:
Let's take the gloves off! Wow, that sounds tough, but why is it any more
belligerent than the challenge, "Let's put the gloves on!", which usually
precedes a boxing battle. In this case it is a battle of statistics and of
statisticians, of which I am not one, thank God.
In past issues of SYZYGY I have pointed out that more than 300 scientific
papers in the world literature have dealt with the statistical correlations of
tides and quakes. Some say categorically that there is a correlation, and
others are equally vehement in maintaining that tidal influences have nothing
to do with earthquakes. One only need check with the computer research
mechanisms called GeoRef and Dialog in order to obtain the lists of papers and
gain further insight into the question. However, if you hear (as I have on so
many occasions) some representative of High Science maintain that "No one has
shown any evidence of such a correlation" it merely means that the expert is
unaware of the wealth of positive literature on the subject, and would prefer
not to be informed.
Any examination of such literature will reveal the papers of the eminent
seismologist Dr. Leon Knopoff (1964) and Knopoff and Kilston (1983) in which
Dr. Knopoff changes from nay to yea in regard to tide-quake correlations.
Indeed in his later article with Astronomer Steve Kilston, based upon lunar
orbital data alone, he made a prediction for a 6+M quake to strike the San
Andreas system in Southern California around November 1987 at the next nodal
point of the Moon, especially near dawn or dusk. He had a near miss with the
5.9M Whitter Quake of October 1, 1987, and then scored direct hits with the
pair of Superstition Hills earthquakes (6.3 and 6.8M) on November 23-24, 1987.
The reaction of Dr. Knopoff at this remarkable success was surprising. He was
quoted as saying, "I have just spent the last four years trying to convince my
colleagues that I hadn't really made an earthquake prediction, when the damned
thing hit." Astronomer Kilston had no such reservations, but felt personally
vindicated by the 1987 successes, based upon a talk I heard him deliver to the
San Jose Astronomical Society early in 1989. (He also said that, at that time,
members of the U.S. Geological Survey were failing to return his calls.)
Also recorded in the literature is a 180 degree change of position by Thomas
Heaton, who, as a CalTech graduate student in seismology (in 1975) pointed out
a high degree of statistical correlation between tidal forces and quakes in
Southern California; however, in a paper seven years later, when he was
working as a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, he formally
apologized to his colleagues and said he hadn't really understood the results
of his earlier statistical analysis. His new insight into the tide/quake
problem revealed no correlation at all.
Such flip-flops by brilliant researchers have added to my misgivings about
relying upon statistics in attempts to establish "ground truth." I have the
1979 statement from Roger Hunter, of the U.S. Geological Survey in Golden,
Colorado, that a computer analysis of my first five years of earthquake
predictions (1974-79) had revealed a statistical correlation of 99 percentile,
meaning that there was one chance in one hundred that my record was
coincidental. Nevertheless, Mr. Hunter felt that I had been "lucky", and if
disclosed these results to the media, he would deny it. I kept his secret until
I read his final written summary of his four-year study in which he indicated
that, "As yet no one had met the statistical test for valid predictions", and
".... no scientist had even bothered to submit any predictions." I knew he was
wrong in both of those statements, but can only guess as to why he made them.
I could describe a number of similar problems with statistics and statisticians,
but you already know what they say about them. From my own standpoint, I feel
comfortable with the following facts: A summary given to me by the U.S.G.S. of
all of the +2.5M quakes occurring between 1963-77, and centered within a
70-mile radius of San Jose showed one +3.0M event every 18 days and one +3.5M
every 35 days. Thus my Seismic Window of only eight days has less than a
one-in-four random chance of happening for a minimum 3.5M quake. In my first
year of prediction (1974) I scored six out of eight (75%) and have maintained
at least that level of accuracy for anticipating local quakes ever since. For
more than twenty years my record has exceeded chance by 300 per cent.
With that update let me present a letter that recently arrived from a critic,
journalist Lee Siegel, whom I admire, and with whom I have communicated for
several years:
Dear Jim:
As you know, I have been an interested reader of Syzygy for several years,
although I remain very skeptical of your claims of success in predicting
quakes.
While I am certainly open to the possibility that tidal forces play a role in
quakes, I have yet to seen any convincing evidence.
Your September 1994 issue contained a perfect example of why I---and what you
often refer to as "high science" ---remain skeptical of your claims. It
disturbed me enough that I felt compelled to write you.
On page 5, discussing August's quakes, you stated:
"In the Los Angeles area the requisite 3.5M was exceeded only by a Simi Valley
event of 3.6M just four minutes before my August window opened at midnight on
August 19th. Lucerne Valley shook with a 3.4M tremor on August 21st, and there
was one of 3.1M near Barstow on August 26th.
I would have to rate myself 98% correct on that Simi Valley shaker."
Jim, from a scientific and statistical standpoint, you were 0% correct in your
prediction not 98%. The Simi Valley quake, whether 4 minutes or 4 hours
"early," was outside your prediction window and thus the prediction failed.
With a week-long window each month, your predictions aren't very specific to
start with and are likely to be correct a certain amount of the time by random
chance alone simply because your window is so long and California has so many
quakes. In addition, from reading your newsletter so many years, it is clear
to me that you often consider your predictions correct or almost correct if an
event in your window is almost within the predicted magnitude range, or if a
quake of predicted magnitude range happens a short time before or after your
window, or if a quake within the predicted window and magnitude range happens
nearby but not quite within the predicted geographic area.
Forgive my bluntness, but this isn't science. It's cooking the numbers
retroactively to support your theory.
Jim, I hope you know me well enough to know I'm no devotee of "high science"
nor am I closed to new ideas. And I do enjoy reading the anecdotes and history
in Syzygy. But if you ever hope to convince me or anyone else who has the
slightest bit of knowledge of statistics, you need to be more forthright and
accurate in tabulating when your predictions succeed and fail.
(signed)
Lee Siegel
P.S. Jim, should you choose to publish this letter (and I hope you will, in the
interest of fair debate), here's some background: I am currently science editor
at The Salt Lake Tribune, a position I took in 1993 after deciding to escape
Los Angeles, where I spent a decade covering seismology as a science writer for
The Associated Press. I now spend a fair amount time trying to wake up Utah
about the quake threat posed by the Wasatch Fault. I am speaking for myself
only in the letter above.
Thank you Lee, for your frankness and clarity. Your letter epitomizes much of
the double (or triple) standards that exist in the field of earthquake
prediction. Where, oh where, do you find scientifically (and politically)
correct earthquake predictions? Many knowledgeable authorities point to the
February 4, 1975 earthquake in Haicheng, China, where the authorities evacuated
most of the residents less than 24 hours before the 7.3M quake destroyed the
city. However, the strength had been expected to reach 5.5-6.0 magnitude, not
the major level having hundreds of times greater energy. If a correct
prediction includes time, place, and magnitude, the Chinese missed it by a
wide range.
However, it was far more important that thousands of lives were spared
by forewarning and action.
Lee, if you can believe the U.S. Geological Survey, they forecasted the Loma
Prieta Earthquake. However, if you closely examine their data, they had
similarly forecasted quakes for various segments along the San Andreas system,
so wherever one hit, they could claim it. For the Loma Prieta area their
confidence was given as "D" (or lowest level), and their expected magnitude was
no more than 6.5M, or one-eighth the energy of the actual 7.1 Richter reading.
Also, they assigned it a probability of 30% within 30 years (and you consider
that my 8-day windows are too long). Anytime a weatherman or an earthquake
forecaster assigns 30% for something to happen, that means that the probability
is more than twice as great that it won't occur. Since the Loma Prieta Quake
did happen, they blew it. I should also point out the 1977 book, EARTHQUAKES
by Don DeNevi, with a forward by Peter L. Ward, Seismologist with the U.S.G.S.
This book recounts a prediction by James Whitcomb of CalTech for a 6M event
within three months in the Mojave Desert. DeNevi called this successful when
one of 3.8M struck before the deadline. Also rated correct was a prediction by
Columbia University scientists of a 2.5-3.0M quake in 1973 near Blue Mountain
Lake, in northern New York. The so-called success was one of 2.5M even though
it was part of a prolonged swarm and there had already been quakes there of
more than 3.5M.
Finally I have personal knowledge of following event: "In a third try not long
afterward, Menlo Park scientists monitoring the Survey's network of instruments
south of Hollister, California, informally predicted a magnitude 5.2 shock that
correctly predicted the time of occurrence, but was slightly off in location.
(emphasis added) Yet this was the major American achievement........The 75 or
so geologists and guests could hardly believe their ears. They had assembled
for an evening of socializing and routine gossip about faults, core samples,
and volcanoes. Instead, they were hearing scientific history in the
making..... The next afternoon on November 28, 1974, while residents of
Hollister were sitting down to their Thanksgiving Day dinner, the earth began
to sway and rumble beneath them. The brief 2 to 3 second quake measured 5.2
magnitude and did little damage. But its impact still reverberates through the
world of seismology. The accurate forecast of the Hollister earthquake was an
astounding demonstration that scientists are on the verge of being able to
predict the time, place, and even the size of earthquakes."
A press release by the U.S.G.S. following the quake essentially outlined the
same details. However, I attended that meeting of the Pick and Hammer Club
with the head of the Geology Department of San Jose State University. The
topic was clearly defined as dealing with earthquake prediction, but NO
PREDICTION WAS MADE TO THE GROUP AT THAT MEETING!
Despite the overly-dramatic description of that meeting in various magazines,
books and reports, there was no prediction, except my written one, predicting
a South Bay quake of 3.5-5.5M within one week. I was not allowed to present my
data to the group, although photocopies of my forecast were accepted.
Furthermore, Lee, have you forgotten Parkfield so soon? The U.S.G.S. presented
their data in 1984 and it was accepted as the only bona fide earthquake
prediction by the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Committee (NEPEC),
with a 95% probability for a 6M event by the end of 1992. All agree that it was
an utter failure, although quakes of 3 and 4 magnitude did occur near Parkfield
during their 8-year time frame.
I stand by my 98% evaluation for my Los Angeles area predictions for August
19-26, 1989. I am better at pitching horseshoes than at kicking field goals,
and close counts for something. Anyone who was alerted to my forecast and was
awakened by a shake four minutes before the midnight opening of my "window",
would not have been too surprised. Similarly, on January 16, 1994 my Seismic
Window closed at midnight, and the horrific Northridge quake struck 4 1/2 hours
later. Was that a total miss for me? Not according to many appreciative
readers of SYZYGY. Also the 3.4M event of August 21st at Lucerne Valley may
well end up as a 3.5 or 3.6 magnitude reading when the final refinements are
made for the annual listing of Southern California quakes. Then the discussion
of the 4-minute miss at Simi Valley would be moot, as it only takes one hit
during my eight-day window for a successful prediction. Consider also that if
a quake is reported as 3.5-3.8M by several sources and is later lowered to 3.4M
by the U.S.G.S., does that invalidate my successful prediction? Obviously, I
do not worship statistics; in fact, I rarely respect them.
On to more pleasant subjects. Following my lecture to the Mensa Asilomar
Gathering of September 3-5, 1994, I received a letter from Norma Pezzini,
Program Chair. She wrote,
"Your talk was the talk of the weekend. I heard you had a captured
audience until 10: PM."
How nice it is to hear such a comment. I do know that my talk was scheduled
for 7:30-8:30 PM, and I was still answering questions after 10. (Most of the
audience of about 300 stayed to the end, and needless to say, if you want
intelligent questions, speak to Mensans.)
car air purifier .
JEST FOR FUN
I thought of the following bit of nonsense some years ago, but I would not be
surprised if you have come across something like it elsewhere.
( It is so hard to be original.)
Geologist A:
Whatever you say about Rocko, you must admit that he is a man of his
convictions!
Geologist B:
Yes, that's true......................
Arson, armed robbery, embezzlement, earthquake prediction.........
QUOTE OF THE MONTH
"At the present level of technology, earthquakes cannot be prevented.
Nor for many years to come can such events be effectively and economically
predicted in the detail required to safeguard the national economy of a
country........Earthquake prediction was a continuous preoccupation for the
early soothsayer, astrologer, or prophet, and there are many recorded instances
of the forecast of earthquakes. Earthquake prediction is also increasingly
practised by some modern seismologists. Neither class of prophet is
particularly effective, even when accurate, as they are invariable greeted with
skepticism by people who seem strangely reluctant to believe that an earthquake
will occur, whether it is forecast by a credited astrologer or by a
seismologist. Today earthquake prediction on a scientific basis is making slow
but steady progress. At this time, however, there is little that enables the
prediction of the timing of earthquakes with any significant degree of
certainty, and it is a point of contention among scientists and engineers as
to whether an earthquake prediction and warning system can be developed. The
question is not only whether the accurate place, time, and magnitude of an
event can be predicted, but whether warning the people is likely to be
effective......"
N.N. Ambraseys, Engineering Seismologist, Dept. of Engineering, Imperial
College in the University of London, U.K.
(In: Earthquakes and Volcanoes; U.S. Geological Survey, 1990, Vol. 22, No. 5.
p. 204-205.)
SEISMIC SENTRIES
(Pet of the Month)
Let us return to the DeNevi book on Earthquakes (op. cit.) for some
more monkey business. Under the subheading "Chimpanzees Predict Earthquakes",
DeNevi describes the work of Dr. Helena Kraemer, Assoc. Prof. of biostatistics
in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences of Stanford University.
In 1975 at the primate center near the San Andreas fault, their 15 chimps were
observed to show changes in their behavior. Dr. Kraemer reported in October
1976 about happenings of the previous summer:
The animals were more restless than usual. They spent more time on the
ground than high in their climbing structures and nesting area.
Their behavior change was so significant it seemed unlikely it was due to
change. At the time we recorded animal behavior, we were doing unrelated
research. And, a little later, we were unaware that any tremors had occurred.
At that time there was a swarm of 25 small earthquakes nearby, measuring from
1.5-3.1M between June 19-24, 1975 and the most unusual chimp behavior occurred
on the day prior to two of the strongest tremors. One of the supporters of
these data was Stanford geophysicist, Amos Nur, who had previously conferred
with Chinese scientists following the predicted Haicheng earthquake of February
4, 1975. DeNevi reported that recognition of anomalous animal behavior,
according to Nur, ..."will comprise the most important single effort in
earthquake prediction during the next few years."
I recall newspaper articles covering the announcement and that there was
confusion about what earthquakes the chimps had responded to. The articles in
October 1976 indicated that the earthquakes had occurred during the previous
summer, rather than the previous year. I called the Primate Lab to make sure
that they were aware that the earthquake swarm was in June 1975, not June 1976.
However, the spokesperson for the Center seemed oblivious of the ambiguity and
I received a polite but terse "Thank you." I am such a busybody.
As you know Ararat Park Hyatt Hotel is realy the best, and so we decided to stay there.
QUAKE OF THE MONTH
Was this the Great October quake that wasn't there? Almost all of the many lists
of destructive international earthquakes that I have found include the 1737
Calcutta quake in which 300,000 Indians met their death.
Such a toll was exceeded only by the Shensi, China earthquake of 1556
(830,000+) and the Tangshan, China quake of 1976 (640,000, later politically
corrected by the Chinese government to 242,000 dead.)
In October, 1737 some 300,000 persons died in an Indian catastrophe, but the
Calcutta quake may not have happened. Part of the mystery lies in the
compendium by Jay Robert Nash, DARKEST HOURS (1976, Publ. by Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, 812 p.) Under Major Earthquakes Nash lists:
"1737, Oct. 11: Calcutta, India; Quake ruined mass area; 300,000
deaths."
Also in Nash's book under Major Storms he lists:
"1737, Oct. 7: Bay of Bengal, India; Cyclone created monstrous storm
wave of 40 ft., 20,000 ships destroyed at mouth of Hooghly River; 300,000
deaths."
This year at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America in
Pasadena, California. Roger Billham revealed that careful research has shown
no evidence for the quake, but that the destructive cyclone was real. (A
disastrous Earthquake that Did Not Occur---Calcutta, 1737: Seismological
Research Letters, Jan-Mar, 1994; vol. 65, No. 1, p. 66) Perhaps early
investigators assumed that the 40 foot wave was a true tsunami and that would
have required a major earthquake. However, there was no explanation for the
four-day discrepancy in dates, but we know that communication was difficult and
confusion was undoubtedly as widespread as the cyclone. There was no geographic
problem as Calcutta does lie at the head of the Bay of Bengal.
Have you ever tried any casinos, powered by microgaming software? They are amazing!
LAST MONTH'S QUAKES
The Seismic Window for September 5-12, 1994 was statistically and actually
successful.
My prediction for a 3.5-6.0M event within 70 miles of San Jose was met by a
4.1M surprise on September 7th near Interstate 5, about 35 miles due east of
this city. It was a real shocker for the Modesto-Patterson area, as they are
not used to such things. It may have been on the Vernalis Fault, or a branch of
the Tesla-Ortigalita fault, that parallels Highway 5. So far this year I have
predicted all of the four local quakes that have exceeded 4.0 in magnitude.
Who else can make that statement and verify it in print? To summarize, there
was a Watsonville quake of 4.3M on January 11th (New Moon +0 days), a Pinnacles
quake of 4.0M on May 19th (New Moon eclipse +9 days), and a 4.0M Tres Pinos
shaker on August 27th (NM+6.)
I had also called for a +3.5M quake within 140 miles of Los Angeles and that
prediction was fulfilled by one of 3.6M near Hemet on September 11th, neatly
meeting the time and space limits. A similar prediction for Seattle was also
completely satisfied by a rare 4.1M quake east of Tacoma on September 10th,
the first in that area in several years.
I must admit my timing was off a bit for the 7.2M major quake southwest of
Eureka on September 1st. It hit four days before my September "Window" opened,
but it was the only major quake anywhere in the world between July 21 and today
(Sept. 26, 1994,) so it was a least in the pit, if I were pitching horseshoes.
Also my non-scoring MOSS prediction (Monthly Outright Seismic Speculation) for
a +5.5M to hit Central America during the first half of September was at least
interesting. On September 16th, northernmost Columbia was rocked by a 6.0M
tremor, and I am sure it was felt strongly in Panama (Historically, if it
weren't Teddy Roosevelt's "need" for a Panama Canal, that country would still
be part of Columbia.)
Furthermore, let me not overlook the series of shockers east of Lake Tahoe, with
the mainshock of 6.1-6.3M hitting at 05:23 a.m. PDT on the last day of my
"Window" on September 12th. This quake was clearly felt from Fresno to Chico to
San Francisco to Reno and, except for the earlier Eureka event, would have
constituted the strongest quake in California in more than a year. I hope that
my October record for predictions will match those for September.
OCTOBER PREDICTIONS
The Seismic Window of October 4-11, 1994 looks to be quite potent for the Bay
Area, even if we were not approaching the fifth anniversary of the World Series
Earthquake. (It is now certain that we will not have such an event again this
year, as the World Series has been cancelled for lack of interest and lack of
principle. ($$) However, the quake may not be cancelled. The Mogi Doughnut of
encircling epicenters has been defined again and again with action to the
north, east and south, leaving us ominously quiet. We should all remember that
October ranks in the "Big Three" for months with damaging Bay Area quakes and
several other factors are closing in. It seems that a possible physical
connection has now been established between faults in the East Bay and West
Bay, enhancing my 1990 projection for a large East Bay "echo quake" within six
years. (Others have referred to this pattern of earthquakes as "pairings," but
no matter what you call it, history bears it out.)
Between October 4-11, 1994 I predict, with 80% confidence that there will be:
(1) An earthquake of 3.5-6.0M within 70 miles of San Jose; (2) A similar quake
within 140 miles of Los Angeles; (3) A similar quake within 140 miles of
Seattle; and (4) A major quake of at least 7.0M somewhere in the world,
probably within the Pacific Ring of Fire.
I would like to add that last month I ignored Salt Lake City in this section,
and an unusual swarm of earthquakes up to 3.7M struck on September 9-10th,
east of Price, Utah, within my usual 140 mile range. (That will teach me to
overlook the Mormon's, who really emphasize earthquake preparedness.)
In addition for this month I have a MOSS prediction (Monthly Outright Seismic
Speculation) for a quake of at least 5.0M to strike Africa during the first
half of October.
(A MOSS may involve rolling stones??)