Disasters Earthquake prediction, a holy grail of science

Predicting earthquakes has proven to be an elusive pursuit for scientist and the mainstream consensus is that it will ever happen, but one group remains hopeful.

Unlike the majority of geologists, who now believe it is nearly impossible to accurately predict earthquakes, those still searching for solutions tend to work in physics and atmospheric science.

In late July, forty-four earthquake experts met at the University of Southern California’s Earthquake Center for two days to discuss forecasting methods.

“I was pretty skeptical going in and I remain skeptical,” said John Vidale, a professor of seismology at the University of Washington, who was among the forty-four experts from around the world invited to attend the meeting.

“I’ve been chasing this for a long time,” said Malcolm Johnston, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey, echoing Vidale’s sentiments. “If you think you can detect the start of an earthquake, it’s going to be very, very difficult.”

In contrast, researchers who are more optimistic about prediction techniques are exploring various theories that they believe can detect in advance when an earthquake will strike.

For instance, Dimitar Ouzounov, a physicist at Chapman University and a seismologist by training, is using satellite data to discern how changes in the atmosphere might relate to earthquakes. Meanwhile, Friedemann Freund, a researcher with NASA is investigating electric signals from rocks being squeezed.

Both scientists agree that it is difficult to change the consensus that their research is a dead-end, but they believe that with the help of non-traditional fields or theories, they might be able to break the logjam.

“This is not going to happen on the spot,” Freund said. “You can inoculate them with new ideas. They always want to keep their skeptical distance and I understand.”

Researchers first began seeking a way to predict earthquakes in the 1960s after two mega quakes rocked the world – in 1960, a 9.5 magnitude tremor hit Chile, and in 1964, a 9.2 magnitude quake hit Alaska.

Scientists examined several potential theories to predict quakes including warping in the Earth’s crust, radon gas releases along fault lines, weird weather, and observing the behavior of cockroaches, snakes, and other animals, but none of these methods proved plausible.

At the meeting in July, attendees did not rate the merits of their theories, but agreed that more study was needed.

Even skeptics like Johnston agreed that the goal of earthquake prediction was worth pursuing.

“We have to keep looking just in the off chance that we have missed something,” he said.