I follow the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network on Facebook and participate there. It is a pretty cool Facebook group—full of actual scientists and interested laypeople. It is the page of the actual seismic network in the Pacific Northwest and is headed by Dr. John Vidale. Frequently new people show up when they read something that scares them a little in the press, something often amplified by the Youtube Apocalypse set. We’ll get to them later on.
It is pretty cool to see: people, worried or scared, will post something along the lines of “is this true? Should I worry?” and someone in the know will post a reply back with “no, it’s bunk, here’s why” or “yes, this is true, here’s the science of why it is true and here’s what you can do to protect yourself.” You guys have something really nice up there in the Pacific Northwest.
This popped up on my radar on Saturday. Same pattern: “Is this real?” Similar answer: “No it’s not; it’s probably smog, although it is interesting.” I figured that was the end of it. I didn’t realize it’d go viral and end up here, although I probably should stop doing that.
Thank goodness for FishOutOfWater.
Anyway, to echo FishOutOfWater and others (like LakeSuperior), no, it’s not real. It’s not an indicator of a giant earthquake. I’ll go one further: If you saw it on a youtube video, really good chance it’s false.
It looks possible that whatever was displayed on the Earth Null Map never happened, because no concurrent spike of carbon monoxide gas was noted by any monitoring stations anywhere on the ground. From Robert Scribbler:
To this point, lack of confirmation at ground reporting stations for high CO readings appearing in the GEO5 monitor increase the likelihood that these high peak readings were a glitch or an artifact in the satellite data. A cursory view of local warnings shows no local CO air quality alerts for the areas indicated in the Nullschool data set (You can view a list of the local monitors here). Analysis of this data also shows much lower CO readings from these stations in the range of 400 to 1200 parts per billion — quite a bit lower than what the GEO5 monitor is showing.
This begs the question — was there some higher altitude plume that confused the GEO5 sensor? Or was there some other signal that tripped the sensor to show such a high reading? But to these points, a general lack of overall confirmation from ground sensors seems to point to the likelihood that such elevated readings in the GEO5 monitor were a glitch, an artifact, or a false reading for this atmospheric level.
But when coupled with the weather, and noting the fire map, I think it was real. It was a smog event that perhaps the software over indicated. Smog events at a smaller scale are common. They get blogged about even here, and anyone who lives in a valley or basin bounded by mountains (or are of an age to remember how bad it used to be in Los Angeles) have experienced this—the absolutely filthy air of the Salt Lake Valley is one infamous example.
THE EARTH NULL MAP
The Earth Null Map is great. In fact, I use it quite a bit. It is, however, only as good as its inputs. It uses the GFS model for its future forecasts. If you follow the weather closely, then you know all about the fights over the GFS versus the Euro; I’ll not rehash them here.
disclaimer
GEOS-5 data (covering all Chem and Particulates layers) comes with the following disclaimer: Forecasts using the GEOS system are experimental and are produced for research purposes only. Use of these forecasts for purposes other than research is not recommended.
EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION
Earthquake prediction with any accuracy is currently not possible. My personal opinion is that it will never be possible. There is a long and storied history here, and there was a great deal of work globally on this during the 1970s. However, that aside, let’s look at some of the methods that have been tried because some of them actually have a lot of merit.
PRECURSORS
There are, in fact, precursors. Radon emissions and electromagnetic disturbances are some. An increase in strain is another. Sometimes springs will increase their output before hand. There are anecdotal reports of animal behavior changing. There are anecdotal reports of “earthquake clouds.” There are at least 400 anecdotally reported types of precursors but the thing about these are there is no consistency in any of this, making it close to impossible to predict that a big earthquake is coming with any accuracy. An infamous example is the Parkfield Experiment.
Parkfield CA sits on a part of the San Andreas that is quite active—it is the northern end of the segment that ruptured in 1857. North of Parkfield to just below the town of Hollister, the fault is actively creeping and aseismic. At Parkfield, there were a regular repeating series of M6 earthquakes---one every 22 years or so. This became the site of a very good experiment---strain meters were installed, lasers were used to measure the strain. Tons of instrumentation went in. The hope was that an earthquake would occur between 1988 and 1993, the last one being in 1966, and they’d capture all sorts of precursors that’d then be of use, not only to science, but also to public safety. A real life earthquake prediction before the fact would be a very useful tool indeed.
They captured nothing of a predictive value. Not only did the quake come “late” (it arrived in 2004), it gave no sign it was coming. They certainly did capture an earthquake in real-time---but the quake gave no sign it was coming.
Research seems to indicate that any earthquake could cascade into being the big one and that seems to be the consensus at this point. It’s a bit tough to create an earthquake prediction like a weather forecast with that in mind, especially since the rupture process of an earthquake is not completely clear.
The biggest problem with this is consistency and reproduction. It is interesting that Geller et al (1997) still is quite valid, almost 20 years later.
SEISMIC GAPS, ELASTIC REBOUND, CHARACTERISTIC EARTHQUAKES, AND PATTERNS
These methods are a bit better. They look at trends to find patterns, although at present none have led to a successful earthquake prediction.
Seismic Gaps are pretty simple to figure out: Here’s a fault and/or plate boundary. The boundary has ruptured here, and here, but not here for some time. That’s the gap. It can be assumed that an earthquake will fill the gap at some point in the near-geologic term. I’m a big fan of the hypothesis as a long-term forecasting tool, although it has its detractors and studies seem to indicate it is not exactly real. Many places use this though, most notably Japan. Japan assumed prior to 2011 that their next giant quake would be south and west of Tokyo, on a patch of subduction zone known as Nankai. They’ve covered it onshore and offshore with instrumentation, hoping, like the USGS at Parkfield, it will give warning. There eventually will be a giant earthquake there, but we all know what happened in March 2011. The Really Really Big One came at a location that they did not really expect.
Elastic Rebound is much like the same---it’s good for long running cycles. The hypothesis is about as old as modern seismology is. Characteristic Earthquakes: Kind of similar to seismic gaps. Faults have segments with behaviors. Each segment has a characteristic earthquake of a specific size that occurs within a certain period. Parkfield was such an example. Unfortunately, that earthquake arriving “late” may have busted this hypothesis. In addition, earthquakes certainly can break across segments of faults.
The key here is the past informs the future, and this is where we are with earthquake forecasting. We can make reasonable probabilistic forecasts. We cannot make absolute predictions.
There are attempts to look at patterns though that might have merit: Kellis-Borok’s M8 “Time of Increased Probability” algorithms (studies indicate the “TIPs” aren’t much better than random chance) and Accelerating seismic moment release (ASMR) which posits that “foreshocks” will increase and an exponential rate before a large earthquake. ASMR seems to be promising—I’m aware of two forecasts made publically using it in the last year or so (Iceland and Oklahoma) but we’ll see. Foreshocks on the other hand are only identified after the fact.
THE YOUTUBE APOCOLYPSE SET
I, perhaps unfairly, tend to dismiss at hand anything that forces me to watch it because I can read far, far faster than I can watch. But there are times I do watch and I can say this. The vast majority of these “predictions” seem to originate with a man who lives in Missouri and thinks he can predict earthquakes, among other things. That in itself is fine—lots of people think they can, and they’re wrong, but this is America and one has the right to be as loudly wrong as they want. What he does is something that has become an immense irritant to me and others. He will reject all science if it doesn’t tell him what he wants to hear. On top of that, he will slander actual scientists. He believes the USGS purposely hides earthquakes and is actively lying so that they can kill people (nope). He believes NEXRAD radar purposely sends tornadoes into cities (he has threatened to sue, and no I’m not joking.) He also believes HAARP does everything conspiracy theorists say it does and chemtrails are real. An avid watcher of satellite feeds, he will then point to the plumes of smoke from prescribed fires and wild fires and say this is evidence the earth is about to unleash a giant earthquake or a volcano is about to erupt, which then prompts his fanclub to inundate local geology departments. There are certain weather conditions, like the recent one on the West Coast, that are great for prescribed fires. This of course has been explained to him, from actual land management people. He simply bans the person explaining it. He keeps no track of his predictions, simply saying all of his are a success, and in addition, he deletes the ones (which is most of them) that are failures, making it impossible for others to evaluate him too. In short, he’s a hack and a liar.
A good number of questions at the PNSN’s Facebook page happen because he’s panicked someone who then wants another opinion. Here’s the thing though; not everything has two sides, and this man is wrong, pretty much all the time, and if we lived in a country like the UK, would be sued for slander and libel. Now there are a great many hacks out there, but most are pretty harmless. He’s the worst and he’s not exactly harmless, even if he’s not doing anything illegal.
WHAT CAN BE DONE NOW?
While I personally think accurate and useful earthquake prediction will never come, ASMR seems to have some merit. I found 168 mentions using Google Scholar. Maybe it’ll come from there. Here’s a good review paper from 2013 about various prediction methods that is worth a read.
What can be done now are probabilistic hazard maps and forecasts, and that’s the best one will get for the time being, perhaps that’s all anyone will get. If one lives in an earthquake prone area, then they should always be prepared for an earthquake no matter what. There are, though, two things that can enhance public safety: strong building codes with requisite tight enforcement and earthquake early warning systems.
Strong building codes means the building you’re in won’t kill you during an earthquake. California has generally very good codes, Washington State as well, and Oregon is lagging but catching up. There is one common denominator in all deadly quakes everywhere: building codes and strong enforcement of them. We saw what happened a few weeks ago in Taiwan. Those buildings should not have come down and it looks like the developer of that one collapsed high rise will be going to prison. Up to 300,000 died in Haiti in 2010 because the buildings they were in killed them.
Earthquake early warning systems will give you a few seconds to up to five minutes of warning that shaking is about to happen at your location. That’s enough time to get somewhere safe, either outside or beneath a sturdy piece of furniture. These systems are operational around the world and soon will be in the United States as well. In Japan the warnings appear on television and SMS text. In Mexico City, sirens sound. You can read about them here. The barrier to their deployment in the US mostly is monetary, not technological. Luckily the White House seems to have shaken (sorry for the pun) some money loose and Congress seems surprisingly open to this being funded.
Tuesday, Mar 1, 2016 · 8:42:51 PM +00:00
·
terrypinder
Hey, so there’s actually an update to this.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Elevated carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations over California in the GEOS-5 products since February 25, 2016, are incorrect. They are a consequence of unrealistic emissions derived from satellite observations of fires, which led to elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO (as well as other species).
NASA's EOS-Terra spacecraft entered safe mode on February 18, 2016, during an inclination adjustment maneuver. This caused the MODIS instrument to enter safe mode, with the nadir and space-view doors closed. When the Terra MODIS transitioned back to science mode on February 24, 2016, the operating temperatures for the SWIR and LWIR (Short-wave Infrared and Longwave infrared) focal planes have not yet stabilized. As a consequence, some data products have been severely degraded. This includes the "Fire Radiative Power" fields that are used by GEOS-5 to compute emissions of CO, CO2, and carbonaceous aerosols by biomass burning.
GMAO is working to correct this problem. The GEOS-5 analyses will be re-run from February 24, 2016, using only the EOS-Aqua MODIS data, in order to exclude the unrealistic CO emissions. EOS-Terra observations will be re-introduced once the instrument has stabilized.
So, apparently, the anomaly was a glitch after all.