3 ms·
Satellite data show electromagnetic anomalies 19 days before Turkey earthquake
- lolc 2y agoI find the idea pretty wild that we should be able to predict earthquakes within days. My understanding is that earthquakes can be predicted like bridge collapses can be predicted. You can collect signs of a developing fault, but the uncertainty of when it rips is measured in years. And if your model is lacking for the specific instance, you'll misjudge the chances by orders of magnitude. So I read papers like this one as hopeless fishing expeditions. But if the fishing expedition turns up with a good catch anyway, people will look into it more. Unfortunately I'm not versed enough to asses their catch. Will wait for a geologist friend for context.
- JPLeRouzic 2y agoI am a layperson, but it seems to me that scientists are discussing these topics for at least a decade (for example since L'Aquila in 2009): See section 2.2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.03652 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.03652 or https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2782 https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2782 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.06592 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.06592 https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0797 https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0797
- T-A 2y agoLonger than that. This guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Sornette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Sornette made a name for himself a couple of decades ago with an approach to predicting earthquakes, financial crashes and other catastrophes: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.022581999 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.022581999
- Loughla 2y agoWhy do I think that he is responsible for writing his own Wikipedia entry?
- heavenlyblue 2y agoLooks like a total whack with loads of credentials
- gravescale 2y agoOh he absolutely did: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Sornette&action=history&offset=20180126220327%7C822527966&limit=100 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Sornette&a... Any edits he made that aren't his own page are editing in references to his own work in other articles.
- Pompidou 2y agoFun fact : 'sornette' means 'poppycock' in french.
- dist-epoch 2y agoWe can predict volcanos erupting within days. And this would not be "predicting", but more "noticing that the process already started"
- lolc 2y agoYes, from what I know for a volcano we have a good geological model of what is going on, and reliable ways of measuring the relevant parameters. Still predicting an eruption is an achievement, and predicting the not eruption especially so. For earthquakes we are lacking both in models and in measurements. We don't know whether there is "a process started" in the days before a quake. This paper is looking for one.
- lxgr 2y agoBetween this and other potential electromagnetic phenomena like earthquake lights (which might or might not be power lines swinging and shorting out, creating sparks, or transformers blowing up), there's a lot we don't understand about earthquakes yet. Piezoelectricity is one of the proposed mechanisms that might explain both earthquake lights and animal behavior changes minutes or hours before the actual shocks start.
- techdragon 2y agoThere’s also bulk triboelectric effects where the mechanical forces, and the subsequent physical movement of large blocks of material can build up static charges due to having different electron affinity, like a rubber balloon and a wool sweater… by rubbing one against the other a static charge builds up… one theory for earthquake lights is ground to sky discharge of triboelectric charge buildup due to different electron affinity between the two sides of a fault plane under stress… a large enough area can make a small enough difference add up, so even if it isn’t earthquake lights, the triboelectric effect could be contributing to what was measured in this case… fault “surfaces” are going to put square kilometres of differing materials against each other… a non zero effect per square meter, can add up quite a bit when applied to several square kilometres.
- proee 2y agoRolling this technology out in practice is quite challenging. How do you trigger "The Alarm" for a given area? How much of a guard band do you put around the event and what happens when you have false positives? Do you call everyone back to the region and say sorry it was a false alarm, only for it to trigger a week later! Would not want to be the one calling the shots on this. It also seems like a good technology to throw into a movie plot - Super Mega Quake... starring Dwyane Johnson.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cjensen 2y agoThis is junk. They claim "anomalies" and fail to state the statistical odds of this anomaly occurring globally and the odds for this particular location. They also examine precisely one large earthquake rather than even considering looking at earthquakes in general. "My cat walked across the keyboard right before the large earthquake" is not statistically significant.
- yinser 2y agoAs Taleb would say, “Fooled by randomness”
- swader999 2y agoYeah, it should lead to predictions being possible fairly quickly if there was something to this.
- neonsunset 2y agoDon't underestimate how dogma of social consensus can stifle otherwise innovative techniques, regardless whether they are proven effective or not.
- cjensen 2y agoThere's no "dogma" or "social consensus" here. The authors of the paper simply failed to do their homework adequately. Earthquake Prediction is filled with cranks. To deal with the issue, there is a neutral set of criteria for "how to test a prediction theory" which involves making predictions in advance with a clear description of what types of events match the predictions and likelihood of event. Geologists can then compare a series of predictions and their outcomes to what would be expected based on historic patterns. Math then allows one to determine if the prediction theory is better than random guessing. No predictions have yet been better than random guessing.
- Retric 2y agoThis magnetic anomalies have been noticed before an earthquakes on many occasions. For example this study found 2 out of 3 major earthquakes studied had similar precursor events. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1474706504000488 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14747... It’s not consistent, but it’s more than a one off correlation.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- swader999 2y agoI'm posting now, there will be a fairly large earthquake on west coast in the next ten days.
- epicureanideal 2y agoGood one. But to be statistically meaningful you’d need to tell us how big, and where on the west coast. The west coast is huge.
- swader999 2y agoNear Vancouver, Seattle, 8+.
- throwaway1o24 2y agoSAR interferometry has been used to measure increased strain in the Earth's crust and identify where earthquakes are more likely. There a lot of published work which is credible. I didn't read the paper here but if results can be confirmed using other approaches could be a valid approach.
- teleforce 2y agoEarthquakes short-term prediction within days or weeks (not forecasting years prior to the event) is a taboo subject for many geologists mainly US based experts (I am looking at you USGS) [1]. We have performed data analytics based on publicly available seismic data that confirmed there are indeed reliable short-term precursor (minor earthquakes around 3 Mw) in all the latest major earthquakes (more than 7 Mw) within one month prior to the event. The seismic data that we analyzed latest major earthquakes from five countries including Turkey (the same latest major earthquakes this paper is reporting), New Zealand, Japan (2024), Indonesia and Philippines. However all prominent relevant journals for seismology/earth/geology/etc, and general journals for examples Nature (main journal and its sub journal Nature Communications) and Science (main journal and its sub journal Scientific Reports) were rejecting the reporting paper before it's even reviewed by the proper reviewers, and rejected by the editors. Heck, even arXiv.org rejected the paper and it's suppose to be pre-print archive not a proper journal. Enough ranting, my point is that based on our analysis they are really precursors for major earthquakes, and we should be monitoring these properly. In fact in the first 100 days of this year 2024, earth have experienced devastating 3 major quakes of more than 7 Mw in Japan, China and Taiwan, the most frequent in world's recorded history within the short period. The so called seismic/geology/earthquake experts, however, seems to have their mind closed that they are treating earthquakes prediction like the investment or lottery prediction (snake oils). [1] Can you predict earthquakes? https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-you-predict-earthquakes https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-you-predict-earthquakes
- KennyBlanken 2y agoA huge swath of the scientific publishing community - including several journals for which geology is only a fraction of the fields they cover - engaging in a conspiracy to is a pretty extraodinary claim. You have not produced extraordinary evidence - or even evidence at all. You also don't provide the motive for such a conspiracy. The kicker: you claim the USGS is leading the charge in shutting down all prediction research, yet the only page you cite is to USGS page which includes a link to a group that engages in prediction experiments: https://www.scec.org/research/csep https://www.scec.org/research/csep
- hilbert42 2y agoThese electromagnetic anomalies are likely caused by stresses in rocks deep underground similar to the phenomenon that occurs when piezoelectric materials are put under stress. As stresses build up before a quake, similarly EM anomalies ought to be detectable beforehand, thus detecting them early could give people enough forewarning for them to seek safety. I don't know whether satellites are ideal or are sensitive enough (because of their distance from the ground) for this kind of earthquake prediction but over the years there have been significant numbers of terrestrially-bound observations of electrical/electromagnetic disturbances occurring before a quake happens to suggest the phenomenon ought to be fully investigated. These EM anomalies have been the subject of a news report in an earlier HN story and I made a suggestion then that until the science was fully established that the Amateur Radio Service could be of possible assistance. Amateur radio operators could perhaps establish a worldwide network to monitor and or detect changes in the EM field on, say, an ultra low frequency band (below the AM broadcast band) as it's likely the most suitable. I'd envisage Amateurs operating a network of CW TXes and signature changes in their carrier signals would act as the early warnings. This could be done as a separate Amateur operation (national operations—RSGB, ARRL, WIA, etc. and or through the IARU), or in conjunction with various government agencies, IPS (Ionospheric Prediction Services), etc. The advantage of using the Amateur Service or including it with government operations (which at the outset would be small) is that many more monitoring points could be established quickly. Moreover, given the science is not well established, it's unlikely governments would fund a large network early on. That's where Amateurs come in, by contrast, the cost of establishing an Amateur network would be minimal and would grow organically (as Amateurs are inherently flexible).