Japan Earthquake Science

[CraigS]

Here's some more perplexing 'chatter' (from this morning's Herald):

NORTH-EASTERN Japan can expect another monster earthquake large enough to trigger a tsunami within days, the head of the Australian Seismological Centre says.

The director, Kevin McCue, said there had been more than 100 smaller quakes since Friday, but a larger aftershock was likely.

Hmm Mr McCue must have superior modelling skills .. then we get this …

A seismology research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Gary Gibson, said the world averages one magnitude 8 quake a year, but the rate was inconsistent. The 1980s and 1990s had far fewer large quakes than average, for example.

''There is more variation than you would expect from a random occurrence of earthquakes, and we really don't have a mechanism to describe why that is the case,'' Dr Gibson said. ''But there is no question that the last two years have been very active and well above average.''

Dr McCue dismissed suggestions that melting glaciers due to global warming could escalate the earthquake risk.

What is it that they are actually trying to say ?
.. absolutely nothing !??! … (and very well said too, I might add).

Cheers

[Outbackmanyep]

Hi guys,

FYI

I subscribe to USGS alerts, the first alert i have is from last Wednesday

Region: NEAR EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
Geographic coordinates: 38.510N, 142.792E
Magnitude: 7.2 M
Depth: 14 km
Universal Time (UTC): 9 Mar 2011 02:45:18
Time near the Epicenter: 9 Mar 2011 11:45:18
Local standard time in your area: 9 Mar 2011 13:15:18
Location with respect to nearby cities:
169 km (105 miles) E (80 degrees) of Sendai, Honshu, Japan
196 km (122 miles) SE (133 degrees) of Morioka, Honshu, Japan
221 km (137 miles) ENE (66 degrees) of Fukushima, Honshu, Japan
416 km (258 miles) NE (40 degrees) of TOKYO, Japan

Since then, including the big earthquake, i have had 97 more alerts.

There were 3 alerts on Wednesday, 4 of Thursday, in the range of 5.7 to 7.2 (being the first alert), so if anything these initial earthquakes should have sounded warning signs although minor.

Looking at the rest of the earthquake alerts, the average depths of the occurences were around 30kms deep.

Amazing!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

What is it that they are actually trying to say ?
.. absolutely nothing !??! … (and very well said too, I might add).

Cheers

They are saying something, Craig. The first statement is saying that because of the size of the aftershocks, there's a good possibility of there being another large quake, in his estimation.

The second is saying that the 80's and 90's were quite and that the last two years or so has been active, more so than usual. He thinks it may not be random and they don't know why.

Probably not all that important in the overall scheme of things, but they're not just throw away lines

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

They are saying something, Craig. The first statement is saying that because of the size of the aftershocks, there's a good possibility of there being another large quake, in his estimation.

The second is saying that the 80's and 90's were quite and that the last two years or so has been active, more so than usual. He thinks it may not be random and they don't know why.

Probably not all that important in the overall scheme of things, but they're not just throw away lines

I see what they're saying .. and it sounds logical, but I still question the value of what they're saying. Because of the known nature of the beast, even logical statements add little-to-no value.

If I was living over there, I doubt that I'd be needing someone to tell me that there's a good possibility of there being another large quake, in someone else's estimation. I think I could estimate that as well as anybody (probably to the same degree of accuracy, too) .. but that still doesn't give me anything I can rely on.

In my opinion, the second statement is almost self-redundant.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Well, they have to sound like they know what they're talking about...they are scientist, you know

[CraigS]

This gets interesting. Found some interesting words:

Chaos is sometimes viewed as extremely complicated information, rather than as an absence of order. The point is that chaos remains deterministic. With perfect knowledge of the initial conditions and of the context of an action, the course of this action can be predicted in chaos theory.

Complexity is non-deterministic, and gives no way whatsoever to precisely predict the future. The emergence of complexity theory shows a domain between deterministic order and randomness which is complex.

Complexity is the opposite of the study of chaos. Complexity is about how a huge number of extremely complicated and dynamic sets of relationships can generate some simple behavioural patterns, whereas chaotic behaviour, in the sense of deterministic chaos, is the result of a relatively small number of non-linear interactions.

Therefore, the main difference between chaotic systems and complex systems, is their history. Chaotic systems do not rely on their history as complex ones do. Complex systems evolve at a critical state built up by a history of irreversible and unexpected events. In a sense chaotic systems can be regarded as a subset of complex systems, distinguished precisely by this absence of historical dependence.

So, it appears most serious attempts at earthquake prediction, take more recognition of earthquakes as complex systems, rather than chaotic.

If this is the case, then even predictions citing ‘higher probabilities’ of impending large ‘aftershocks’, (ie: capable of generating tsunamis), would be a subset of the overall complexity and would thus, still be complete conjecture. There is just as much chance of there not being large aftershocks.

Interesting .. this all depends on the modelling approach taken from the outset which again, is dependent on basic observational data taken over a given timeframe.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Here's another geophysicist dude speaking authoritatively … (he's from the "Richard H Hagemeyer Pacific Tsunami Warning Center") … take a look at the 1:00 mark where he ends up saying that he thinks we have 'a few more (big ones) to worry about' (referring to the perceived clustering).

So, here's a recent paper (dated 28 Oct 2010), which uses the latest (sophisticated) earthquake modelling techniques, which concludes:

These results could be interpreted that there are no correlations between any two seismic behavior. Our findings support the hypothesis that even if the statistical data of previous earthquakes is known, the magnitude of the next earthquake is still unpredictable. Finally, the scaling relation of waiting times for the weighted OFC model has been discussed and obtained.

I'm overwhelmed by the lack of commonality on the issue of unpredictability (as is evidenced time and time again from the theory), and the message these guys deliver. The two are completely at odds with eachother.

Am I misunderstanding some thing here (I'm prepared to admit that this is more than possible ).

Cheers

[CraigS]

Ok .. the scientific plot thickens …

He's a video of 'John Rundle', UC Davis seismologist predicting the numbers and magnitudes of the aftershocks. A gloomy outlook for Tokyo, it seems.

He mentions these predictions are in accordance with the 'well known' Laws of Seismology … he mentions 'Bass' Law of Seismology (at around the 25 sec mark).

Anyone know anything about Bass' Law ?

(I'm very willing to learn more about this … )

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok .. the scientific plot thickens …

He's a video of 'John Rundle', UC Davis seismologist predicting the numbers and magnitudes of the aftershocks. A gloomy outlook for Tokyo, it seems.

He mentions these predictions are in accordance with the 'well known' Laws of Seismology … he mentions 'Bass' Law of Seismology (at around the 25 sec mark).

Anyone know anything about Bass' Law ?

(I'm very willing to learn more about this … )

Cheers

It's to do with the statistical analysis of earthquake prediction, namely the scaling of earthquake seismicity and modeling between simulated and actual earthquakes. They try to predict aftershocks using the models generated. Rundle helped develop the BASS model for earthquake prediction

Here's the article

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's to do with the statistical analysis of earthquake prediction, namely the scaling of earthquake seismicity and modeling between simulated and actual earthquakes.

Thanks Carl;

Got a reference so I can read up on it ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Thanks Carl;

Got a reference so I can read up on it ?

Cheers

Just added it to my previous post

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Just added it to my previous post

Cool .. thanks.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Not exactly pleasant science but does anyone here have any idea of how quickly the 'faceless fifty' receive their lethal dose of radiation. As I understand it the Japanese government has raised the legal radiation daily dosage to 5x the U.S. standard?

Brian

[CraigS]

Here ya go … the aftermath and a reminder that earthquakes cannot be predicted (because their patterns are part of a "Complex System"):

Japan's seismologists blinded to March 11 quake: journal

Japan's seismologists were so entrenched in outdated beliefs about seismic hazard that they became blinkered to the risk of the March 11 mega-quake, a commentary in a top science journal charged on Wednesday.
…
Geller pointed the finger at a belief, entrenched for decades, that Japan faces imminent risks of a huge earthquake in a plate boundary off the southern coasts of Honshu and Shikoku.
…
"This misleads the public into believing that the clock is ticking down inexorably on a magnitude-eight earthquake that is certain to strike the Tokai district in the near future," he said.
…
"It is time to tell the public frankly that earthquakes cannot be predicted, to scrap the Tokai prediction system and to repeal the LECA," said Geller.

"All of Japan is at risk from earthquakes, and the present state of seismological science does not allow us to reliably differentiate the risk level in particular geographic areas."

More evidence that we should all be more focused on Chaos/Complexity Theory, as our survival implicitly depends on it !

The arrogance here, is to ignore what we know, which is a mathematical certainty.

Nature at the macro scales, does not allow predictability !
… This is in spite of the predictability of the laws of classical physics, which drive it all !

Cheers, Captain Chaos.

[yusufcam (Colin)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Here ya go … the aftermath and a reminder that earthquakes cannot be predicted (because their patterns are part of a "Complex System"):

More evidence that we should all be more focused on Chaos/Complexity Theory, as our survival implicitly depends on it !

Nature at the macro scales, does not allow predictability !

… This is in spite of the predictability of the laws of classical physics, which drive it all !

Cheers, Captain Chaos.

my feeling is that these things are unpredictable only because of the paradigms being used (or more precicisely the assumptions upon which those paradigms are based).

Not that they are unfathomable, beyond comprehension, or in the final analysis, inherently (in a sense) unpredictable.

but this is belief

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by yusufcam

my feeling is that these things are unpredictable only because of the paradigms being used (or more precicisely the assumptions upon which those paradigms are based).

Not that they are unfathomable, beyond comprehension, or in the final analysis, inherently (in a sense) unpredictable.

Hi Colin;
Nature does its own thing. The models we create, are our feeble way of trying to convince ourselves that we can master (via predictions), phenomena which may ultimately, be not predictable, by their very nature.

The unpredictability of earthquakes is demonstrable. Our predictions fail all tests, so far applied.

This gives absolute weight to the assertion that they are unpredictable, and thus also goes a long way towards helping us to subdue our intuitive reliance on feelings and opinions, when it comes to physical phenomena.

Sounds like these Japanese scientists mentioned in this article, may not have yet tweaked to the unpredictability of it all, (as is supported by empirical, observational evidence).

We can act on the acceptance of the unpredictability. In this case, assuming that earthquakes/tsunamis are 'more likely' to strike along the south coast of Japan, demonstrates a reliance on a (flawed) prediction. And yet, the evidence demonstrates that the phenomenon is not predictable.

If it was me, I would've acted assuming that we have no idea as to where and when, the next earthquake would strike. This would then seemingly lead to a program of building reactors inland, instead of just in the northern part of the country and on the coast ! (For example).

We can make sound, very practical decisions based upon the assurance of unpredictability.

Cheers

[yusufcam (Colin)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hi Colin;

The unpredictability of earthquakes is demonstrable. Our predictions fail all tests, so far applied.

We can make sound, very practical decisions based upon the assurance of unpredictability.

Cheers

its odd because i agree with a lot of what you are saying that i would still argue in part agianst it (its like yes, but ).

i am not sure this is considered an established fact in the realm of science but isn't there the idea that animals can sense impending natural disasters?

its a widely accepted fact that migratory animals (birds, whales) have barely understood navigational skills which enable them to navigate huge distances across the globe.

they are in the natural world

what do you think?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by yusufcam

i am not sure this is considered an established fact in the realm of science

It is .. with mathematical assurance.

Originally Posted by yusufcam

but isn't there the idea that animals can sense impending natural disasters?

Perhaps, but as you say, this is just an idea.
When it comes to mathematical assurance vs ideas, I'll go where with a statement of assurance, with demonstrable evidence (testability), and pure logic backing it up.

Originally Posted by yusufcam

its a widely accepted fact that migratory animals (birds, whales) have barely understood navigational skills which enable them to navigate huge distances across the globe.

they are in the natural world

what do you think?

Well, as you say, this is barely understood.

The unpredictability of earthquakes, on the other hand, is well understood, and assured.

Cheers

[Outbackmanyep]

Earthquake alert period should be 3-4 days approximately prior and after new of full moon, where i can't tell you!
May be a little science behind it, i am not an expert, but from my observations of really big ones they are mostly 2-5 days after new or full moon.
The more active regions that have been making headlines recently are a good place to start!

If you subscribe to USGS Quake alerts you'll find that there are HEAPS of quakes every day!

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Outbackmanyep

May be a little science behind it

G'day Yep !

A little science, (maybe)

Mathematical assurance behind unpredictability, though.

Hmmm

I'll go with the flo' bro !
(Just playing around .. and having some fun here .. with a serious side to it all as well).

Cheers & good to see you back !