1997
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1997.tb06588.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Earthquake prediction: a critical review

Abstract: SUMMARY Earthquake prediction research has been conducted for over 100 years with no obvious successes. Claims of breakthroughs have failed to withstand scrutiny. Extensive searches have failed to find reliable precursors. Theoretical work suggests that faulting is a non‐linear process which is highly sensitive to unmeasurably fine details of the state of the Earth in a large volume, not just in the immediate vicinity of the hypocentre. Any small earthquake thus has some probability of cascading into a large e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
226
0
5

Year Published

1999
1999
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 447 publications
(244 citation statements)
references
References 443 publications
(209 reference statements)
0
226
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The perennial promise of successful earthquake prediction captures the imagi nation of a public hungry for certainty in an uncertain world.Yet, given the lack of any reliable method of predicting earth quakes [e.g., Geller, 1997;Kagan and Jack son, 1996;Evans, 1997],seismologists regu larly have to explain news stories of a supposedly successful earthquake predic tion when it is far from clear just how suc cessful that prediction actually was. When journalists and public relations offices report the latest 'great discovery' regarding the prediction of earthquakes, seismologists are left with the much less glamorous task of explaining to the public the gap between the claimed success and the sober reality that there is no scientifically proven method of predicting earthquakes.…”
Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The perennial promise of successful earthquake prediction captures the imagi nation of a public hungry for certainty in an uncertain world.Yet, given the lack of any reliable method of predicting earth quakes [e.g., Geller, 1997;Kagan and Jack son, 1996;Evans, 1997],seismologists regu larly have to explain news stories of a supposedly successful earthquake predic tion when it is far from clear just how suc cessful that prediction actually was. When journalists and public relations offices report the latest 'great discovery' regarding the prediction of earthquakes, seismologists are left with the much less glamorous task of explaining to the public the gap between the claimed success and the sober reality that there is no scientifically proven method of predicting earthquakes.…”
Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, a generally accepted method for earthquake prediction has not been found [Geller, 1997]. In this paper, we examine a widely-discussed proposed method for earthquake prediction presented by Whiteside and Ben-Zion [1995], hereafter referred to as WBZ.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both parameters have been used in a variety of seismological studies, especially in seismicity simulation (Ogata and Zhuang 2006;Felzer, 2008), earthquake prediction (Kagan and Knopoff, 1987;Geller, 1997), and seismic hazard and risk assessment (Cornell, 1968;Beauval and Scotti, 2004). The accurate calculation of this parameter is therefore of critical importance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%