|
|
本帖最后由 月之女祭司 于 23.4.2010 11:15 编辑
( @& I( M% M1 M# d
1 ]4 q+ X2 Q7 |3 s6 L原来坚持认为地震目前还不可预测就是五毛了，那感情世界上所有权威学术机构都是五毛了。既然都那么懒得查，我就贴在这里了：
5 T4 G' k0 o" L& N0 |# W" G9 E1 m p( X/ E" M9 H
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction
( [8 [4 Z. k2 A3 T1 ]2 p0 m' ~1 a2 |; d& S
An earthquake prediction is a prediction that an earthquake of a specific magnitude will occur in a particular place at a particular time (or ranges thereof). Despite considerable research efforts by seismologists, scientifically reproducible predictions cannot yet be made to a specific day or month.[1] However, for well-understood faults seismic hazard assessment maps can estimate the probability that an earthquake of a given size will affect a given location over a certain number of years.[2] The overall ability to predict earthquakes either on an individual basis or on a statistical basis remains remote.( R% i0 }5 z2 ~1 a* z& \) e
. ^. N& F" ]4 Y
4 i9 G8 q: r, G8 rHistory of prediction attempts3 y2 T' R( K1 X7 j; a
[edit] China
) k, w' i3 ?) }$ `
( p" E4 O1 ?( O8 ~$ A9 q2 iAfter a series of foreshocks, the Chinese government was able to successfully evacuate much of the populace before the 1975 Haicheng earthquake. However, the Chinese government failed to predict the July 28, 1976 M7.8 Tangshan earthquake, which put Chinese earthquake prediction research in doubt for several years.
) { G' p4 w) d# t) I" d4 K- S6 h# e; u3 r9 A7 J- e2 D; D
In the late 1990s, the Chinese government issued over thirty false alarms,[22] but claimed successful prediction of the November 29, 1999, M5.4 Gushan-Pianling Earthquake in Haicheng city and Xiuyan city, Liaoning Province.[23]# G1 K9 a0 Q9 T0 l& ~8 {- c' \
[edit] Japan
9 G, M+ m1 \/ B- ]; m% D0 ^. T
& P; x3 M: }+ H1 b$ pIn the 1970s and 1980s, the Japanese government embarked on a major earthquake preparedness campaign, which some criticized as emphasizing prediction too much over mitigation.[24] It failed to result in a prediction of the Great Hanshin earthquake which devastated the city of Kobe in 1995.9 h( K; N; J" i! g% ]
[edit] Failed Lima prediction
3 S! | X" r+ J. k3 J6 k8 v
1 h D$ e0 Z' C- Z6 g7 KAn earthquake predicted by a scientist at the U.S. Bureau of Mines to occur on June 28, 1981, in Lima, Peru, failed to materialize. Despite being dismissed by the U.S. National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, the prediction caused popular fear and many left the city.[25]3 Y) K0 M" O9 O
[edit] Failed Parkfield earthquake prediction
: p4 v3 ]6 Z$ C2 K3 I8 ]Main article: Parkfield earthquake
# u( k0 i& X) t6 y9 [, x; V! l0 A- s0 r3 `0 l o
Based on a history of regularly spaced earthquakes in the early 20th century, the USGS in 1985 began an experiment based on the predictions and published papers of Allan Lindh and W.H. Bakun of the USGS and T.V. McEvilly of the University of California at Berkeley. The goal was to predict a 6.0 magnitude earthquake near Parkfield, California.[26]4 z' t7 f8 |3 T
1 X) ^6 {, |0 b) u0 M7 _. E "Bakun and Lindh summarized the state of the art in the Parkfield Prediction Experiment, and predicted that a moderate-size earthquake would occur at Parkfield between 1985 and 1993. Their prediction was unusual both in its precision (as to location, time and magnitude) and high degree of confidence (95% within the 9-year window). Bakun and Lindh (1985) also suggested that the predicted earthquake could produce extended rupture of the San Andreas fault to the southeast, possibly growing to magnitude 6.5 to 7.0."[27]
. W& K2 K; O7 g: ?: O6 L' H
/ H# J3 j! {; t5 N. m- g3 qMedia attention focused on the prediction and the experiment. 122,000 pamphlets were mailed to residents of the Parkfield area, entitled "The Parkfield Earthquake Prediction."[28] Despite the prediction, such an earthquake did not occur until after the end of the prediction window, in 2004.[1]
# v* F; J- W9 |: t8 A$ C[edit] Loma Prieta prediction3 E# Q2 ]) k0 {# w8 }; E6 e6 S
, p# o Z$ b: o/ g! h2 n1 N: ]* G
From 1968 to 1988 scientists in California mapped seismic activity on a cross section of the fault lines. They identified a "seismic gap" in the Loma Prieta area from various features of the regional seismicity. They therefore concluded that Loma Prieta was due for an earthquake.[citation needed] Smaller quakes several months beforehand were treated as possible foreshocks, but the warnings had expired by the date of the moment magnitude 6.9 quake, on 17 October 1989.[1]
" l6 A1 c( H# }6 z: b$ HFurther information: 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake+ Q& J) ?# e# F1 }
[edit] Failed New Madrid prediction by Iben Browning, S% j' d, t6 k( D8 U8 i5 m
' S6 X5 K7 D* z. B; yIn 1989 Iben Browning predicted a major earthquake in the New Madrid fault zone of southern Missouri and specified December 2 or 3, 1990, as the most likely days. This prediction was reported on extensively in the media and lead to great community concern. No earthquake occurred on those days or thereafter.7 H: t: ?- q* [$ A- r
[edit] Jim Berkland
: S& W$ V' B+ I j* T1 z! `- E, C% D
4 ]' u% {' L3 S8 t4 I" Z' wJim Berkland claims to have predicted the Loma Prieta quake,[29] but the mainstream scientific community does not endorse his techniques as repeatable, attributing his success with this quake partly to random chance.
6 a/ j; ?( f# Z: R" D[edit] Failed SoCal prediction, f( l5 t- w% m
3 Y7 m$ a3 p, G6 x% h4 `; b9 J! CIn early 2004, a group of scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, led by Dr. Vladimir Keilis-Borok, predicted that a quake similar in strength to the San Simeon earthquake of 2003 would occur in a 12,000 square mile (31,100 km) area of Southern California by September of that year. The odds were given as 50/50.
b9 \9 Y7 X6 X3 l" ^
' T. }+ h2 d1 H! Z2 T* SIn April 2004, the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (CEPEC) evaluated Keilis-Borok's prediction and reported to the California State Office of Emergency Services.[30] CEPEC concluded that the "uncertainty along with the large geographic area included in the prediction (about 12,400 square miles) leads (us) to conclude that the results do not at this time warrant any special policy actions in California.” The predicted time window came and went with no significant earthquake.
! ]) z+ j& G' w N |% u5 d2 i[edit] L'Aquila controversy
4 D Q* Z* m$ L$ K- Z/ a9 K: I3 Z0 z+ b% B! v3 E! H$ s
Giampaolo Giuliani claims to have predicted the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. He was reported to Italian police for "causing fear" but he was acquitted [31]. His prediction was dismissed by scientists and politicians as a fluke.[32] |
|
[复制链接]
狗仔卡
发表于 21.4.2010 17:52:11
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
