We may never be able to predict earthquakes – but we can already know enough to be prepared


Hadi Ghasemi, Geoscience Australia and Phil R. Cummins, Australian National UniversityYesterday’s earthquake in eastern Victoria shook the ground for hundreds of kilometres around and damaged buildings as far away as Melbourne – and took many people by surprise.

While Australia doesn’t compare with seismic hotspots like New Zealand and Japan, relatively small quakes are expected, with Geoscience Australia’s quake tracker listing more than a dozen in the past week alone.




Read more:
Melbourne earthquake: what exactly happened, and what’s the best way to stay safe from aftershocks?


Even though earthquakes happen all the time, we still can’t predict when the next one will strike, or where, or how big it will be. Unfortunately, we may never be able to make that kind of prediction.

But we can estimate the likelihood of future quakes – and often, that’s enough to make sure our cities are prepared to cope with them.

Why we can’t predict earthquakes

Earthquakes are caused by sudden slips or ruptures in the rock beneath our feet, driven by the movement of the enormous tectonic plates that make up the Earth’s crust.

The exact timing and location of one of these slips are impossible for us to know in advance. Nobody has ever found a reliable and repeatable indicator that a quake is about to happen. We would need a highly detailed model of all the rock everywhere inside the Earth and an understanding of how it responds to tectonic stress to even stand a chance of predicting an earthquake.

However, suppose we understand the large forces driving the tectonic plates and the current level of earthquake activity, and we also study where faults have ruptured in the past. In that case, we can estimate the likelihood that different types of earthquakes might occur in the future.

What we can predict

To calculate the probability of future earthquakes, we look at the seismic activity measured since the development of seismometers about 100 years ago and knowledge of earlier earthquakes from the historical record, and combine these with information about the faults in the Earth’s crust where quakes can occur.

Australia has relatively little seismic activity, but we know there are hundreds of small faults beneath the Australian landmass. These are places where pressure created by the movement of tectonic plates can cause fault rupture or “slip”, which we experience as earthquakes that generate seismic waves and ground shaking.

Red lines show faults beneath Victoria detected by scientists. The orange circle shows the location of yesterday’s quake.
Geoscience Australia

When we discover a fault, from studying earthquakes or looking at aerial imagery, we often send out teams of geologists to dig trenches across the fault to find traces of past, often prehistoric, earthquake rupture. Depending on the type of signature past earthquakes have left in the soil profile, we can estimate the age and extent of fault movement and develop a history of earthquake activity extending hundreds or often thousands of years into the past.

Identifying prehistoric events is important because the time between large earthquakes on major faults may be longer than the instrumental or even historical record. Without knowledge of prehistoric events, we would have to rely exclusively on the relatively short history of instrumentally recorded earthquakes.

This may cause us to miss the big earthquakes that happen very rarely. We know that longer faults, for example, can usually produce bigger quakes – so if even if we haven’t seen a big quake at a long fault, we know it may be possible in future.




Read more:
The earthquake that rattled Melbourne was among Australia’s biggest in half a century, but rock records reveal far mightier ones


By combining knowledge of the large earthquake history of nearby faults, and the level of activity of random, smaller earthquakes that may not rupture major faults but occur often enough to be estimated from the instrumental record, we can make a computer model of the likelihood of earthquake occurrence.

For this earthquake occurrence model to be helpful in estimating hazard, we also need to calculate the strength of ground motion generated by each earthquake. This depends strongly on the depth, location, and size of each earthquake.

The ground motion also depends on the properties of rock in the Earth’s crust through which the seismic waves pass, with some rocks absorbing more energy than others. It also depends on the local geology and soil profile near the site of interest, with softer soil leading to stronger ground motion.

Mapping hazards

At Geoscience Australia, we have mapped some of these probabilities in the National Seismic Hazard Assessment. For everywhere in Australia, this map shows the ground motions that may be exceeded over the next 50 years, at certain levels of probability.

National Seismic Hazard Assessment of Australia map.
Geoscience Australia, CC BY-NC

This ground motion, usually expressed in terms of a fraction of the acceleration of gravity at the Earth’s surface, is what we call the seismic hazard. Its potential to damage things we value – buildings, for example, or human lives, is what we call “risk”.

From the “risk” point of view, we may not necessarily care if the hazard is high in a place where there are no people, for example, but we may be very concerned if the hazard is high in a big city.

Yesterday’s earthquake is a good example of this: a magnitude 5.9 earthquake in country Victoria is an exciting novelty for most, but the same earthquake occurring in Melbourne would cause huge problems.

Building codes use hazard maps like this to specify how much shaking buildings in an area need to withstand to keep the risk at an acceptable level. Engineers then make sure their buildings are constructed so they won’t fall when they experience the level of ground shaking forecast in the hazard map.




Read more:
Earthquakes don’t kill people; buildings do. And those lovely decorative bits are the first to fall


However, until the 1989 Newcastle earthquake, no one realised the Australian building code needed to account for earthquake hazard. Many buildings built before this may be vulnerable even to the level of ground shaking forecast by the hazard map.

An earthquake of magnitude 5.9, if it occurs as far from Melbourne as yesterday’s earthquake did, shouldn’t cause significant damage to buildings that follow the current building code. The fact that it did likely means some buildings are built to a lower standard, and indeed we can see from news photos that many of the damaged buildings look like they were built before 1989.

Insurance companies also use hazard maps to determine the likelihood of damaging earthquakes and set their premiums accordingly.

So, while we can’t tell you where the next earthquake will strike or how big it will be, we can quantify the likelihood of ground motion intensity at the location of interest to make sure we’re all ready for it.The Conversation

Hadi Ghasemi, Senior Seismologist, Geoscience Australia and Phil R. Cummins, Professor, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Harold Camping: Fall Out from False Prediction of the End Continues


The latest in End Times predictions by a PreMillenialist has ended in falsehood yet again. This should come as no surprise, given that no-one on earth serves in any role on the Lord’s ‘returning to earth committee (not that there is such a committee I should make clear).’ The day is not known to anybody, whether saved or unsaved and will not be made known until such time as it actually happens. Of all the difficuties surrounding the interpretations of End Times Eschatology, surely that is one of the clearer areas that most Christians should be able to agree upon.

Sadly there are too many who are willing to presume a role in deciding the time of the Lord’s return and yet again we have another example of such a delusion causing the name of the Lord and His followers to be mocked on the earth. This is all that can happen from such flights of deluded fancy, excepting the destruction wrought in the faith of some believers that are caught up in such delusive predictions.

For more on the fall out of Harold Camping’s falsehood see:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/harold-camping-bashed-as-false-prophet-on-family-radio-airwaves-50713/

 

CRICKET: AUSTRALIAN TEST TEAM IN DECLINE


I have been saying it for some time now – both on and off this Blog – the Australian test cricket team is in decline and coming back to the field. The recent test series results against India, New Zealand and now South Africa seem to show that it is indeed so. It had to happen – just as it happened to the world dominating West Indian team of yesteryear. Teams rise to the top and come back to the mix as another rises to the top.

Which is the top team now? Is it South Africa or is it India? England pretended to make a claim for the top ranking a little while back, but these two teams seem far more serious in their respective attempts. A test series between these two teams will perhaps show us the answer.

In the mean time it is likely that South Africa will defeat Australia in the current test series in Australia to the tune of 3 – 0. That is my prediction.

The ridiculous inclusion of Andrew Symonds while injured in the last test match came home to bite Australia when Brett Lee went down injured. Lee now appears to be out injured for some time and will join Stuart Clark on the sidelines – as will Andrew Symonds belatedly. Shane Watson will also be on the sidelines and his inclusion in the last team is as bewildering as that of Symonds, given that Watson was also injured and requires surgery.

It seems incredible to me that the replacements coming into the Australian team are simply those replacing injured players. The inclusion of Doug Bollinger is one that I have thought logical for some time, while Ben Hilfenhaus and Andrew McDonald are unexpected in my view.

If the selectors are going to keep Mitchell Johnson and Peter Siddle (which I suspect is a given), then I would also include Bollinger and Hilfenhaus, as well as McDonald. Who would go to make room for these three? Lee and Symonds (as well as Watson) have already been forced out due to injury. I would put Hilfenhaus in ahead of Nathan Hauritz. We just don’t have a spinner that currently cuts it at international level.

The selection that really bothers me is that of keeping Matthew Hayden in the side – if the selectors don’t know that it is time for him to go then surely Matthew Hayden must know! Even if he scores a reasonable or big score in the final test it is time for Hayden to make way for Phillip Hughes. Hayden has done little to justify his continual selection in the test team for some time and it is now becoming a sad tragedy to see this former great test opener heap embarrassment upon himself and the national team with each failure. It seems any big scores are now punctuated by a plethora of insignificant contributions with the bat from Hayden.

And one other thing – the attempt by Mike Hussey to take that skier in the last test – if you can’t see it in the sun there is little he can do about it. It looked embarrassing but there was little Hussey could do to change what was. The bigger concern for Hussey is his own poor form in the batting department. He must begin to contribute more soon too or he also could face the chop.

BELOW: The Michael Hussey attempted catch

BELOW: Graeme Smith speaks to Mark Taylor after South Africa won the second test and the series