Bu sitede bulunan yazılar memnuniyetsizliğiniz halınde olursa bizimle iletişime geçiniz ve o yazıyı biz siliriz. saygılarımızla

    ingilizce dilinden there is no scientific basis for earthquake predictions. there is always a chance for earthquakes in places with active faults, but specific forecasts perform no better than random when tested. claims of correlation with planetary alignment have been disproven. çevirisi

    1 ziyaretçi

    ingilizce dilinden there is no scientific basis for earthquake predictions. there is always a chance for earthquakes in places with active faults, but specific forecasts perform no better than random when tested. claims of correlation with planetary alignment have been disproven. çevirisi Ne90'dan bulabilirsiniz

    Turkey Earthquake 'Planetary Geometry Prediction' Slammed by Skeptics

    Turkey Earthquake 'Planetary Geometry Prediction' Slammed by Skeptics

    A devastating series of earthquakes ravaged Turkey on Monday, February 6, with more than 2,300 people reported dead so far, and thousands more injured after the 7.8 magnitude tremor shook southern Turkey and northern Syria.

    One of dozens of aftershocks recorded in the region over the past few hours was only a few decimal points weaker than the initial quake at 7.5 magnitude, according to United States Geological Survey records.

    With videos of the devastating aftermath flooding social media as rescue workers continued to search through the rubble, the disaster has also become the subject of misleading and unevidenced claims, Newsweek Misinformation Watch found.

    One such claim revolved around a tweet, posted by a self-described "researcher" days before the catastrophe, that appeared prescient in hindsight, with many users citing the tweet on Monday in the wake of what was reportedly one of the strongest earthquakes on record.

    "Sooner or later there will be a ~M 7.5 #earthquake in this region (South-Central Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon). #deprem," Frank Hoogerbeets wrote on Twitter on Friday, February 3, 2023, with the tweet gathering more than 34 million views as of Monday afternoon.

    Multiple media outlets, including Newsweek, cited the tweet and the ensuing social media hype around it.

    Describes himself as a "researcher at SSGEOS, with "utmost respect for planets, especially Earth."

    SSGEOS—a "Solar System Geometry Survey"—claims to be a "research institute for monitoring geometry between celestial bodies related to seismic activity."

    Newsweek reached out to Frank Hoogerbeets for comment.

    However, as the tweet went viral and began to hit the headlines, it drew a backlash from the scientific community, which questioned both the validity of the "prediction" and the broader scientific basis underlying the group's methodology.

    "A prediction should state time, place and magnitude. 'Sooner or later' does not constitute a time. So he did not predict the quake," Roger Musson, author and geoscientist with over 35 years of experience in seismology, who formerly worked for the British Geological Survey as Head of Seismic Hazard and Archives, told Newsweek.

    Other skeptics pointed to scientifically dubious methodology on which the "prediction" was based.

    "The tidal forces within the Earth resulting from changing geometry with respect to other planets are miniscule and down among the noise," David Rothery, Professor of Planetary Geosciences at the Open University, told Newsweek in an email.

    "Lunar tides within the Earth are bigger and so more likely to be the immediate trigger of an earthquake, but even so all they will do is act as the 'final straw', initiating a quake that was about to happen anyway because the long term build up of strain had approached a critical threshold.

    "I could say that 'sooner or later' there will be a M7 earthquake on the half of the E[ast] Anatolian fault that did not move today. I would be right, but it would be of no value as a prediction," Rothery concluded.

    Indeed, while on the surface timing of the tweet, just days before the quake struck, may seem prescient, Hoogerbeets' and SSGEOS Twitter feeds feature countless similar predictions, many of which did not precede any high-magnitude shocks.

    Crucially, many of the predictions are vague enough to cover huge territory of where the earthquake(s) may strike, and/or focus on the well-known danger zones that are near prominent tectonic fault lines, and where spikes of seismic activity has been recorded.

    In at least one case reported in the mainstream media, Hoogerbeets made a similarly audacious prediction of a massive 8+ magnitude earthquake that was seemingly imminent in late December of 2018.

    The prediction was debunked by experts, including an Australian seismologist, who said that "planetary alignment doesn't have any impact on earthquakes," adding that there's "more gravitational pull from an airplane."

    Indeed, as records show, no earthquakes of "high seven to eight magnitude" were recorded anywhere on the planet in the ensuing days and weeks, with the strongest-magnitude 7.0 striking the Philippines on December 29-falling short of the predicted scale.

    With enough predictions, even if most do not pan out, given that dozens of tremors occur around the globe every day, it is not impossible that one forecast hits the bullseye.

    "After an earthquake, we see many people claiming to have predicted it, despite a long string of previous failures," Ilan Kelman, a professor at the UCL Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, told Newsweek in an email.

    But, as Newsweek reported in the past, the current scientific consensus is that there is no proven and reliable method to accurately predict such natural disasters, through planetary observations or otherwise.

    "In general, we can predict where earthquakes are expected to happen, since we have done well at mapping fault lines, but not when—especially not far in advance. Some signals just before the shaking continue to be investigated to possibly give us short notice. None have been confirmed,

    "As I cannot find peer-reviewed scientific publications regarding this alleged method of prediction, caution is advised in accepting it as a valid method, while continuing investigations along many lines," Kelman explained.

    Similarly, Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London, told Newsweek in an email that there have been plenty of claims, but "there is no evidence that anyone has ever predicted an earthquake.

    "Earthquakes may be preceded by pre-cursors, including changes in well levels, radon gas emissions, changes in the electrical/magnetic properties of rocks, but often aren't. And sometimes, such signs occur when no quake follows. The bottom line is that earthquake prediction is NOT currently possible. And may never be," McGuire concluded.

    The reliance on planetary observations as basis for forecasting is in itself not new, and appears to hark back to astrology and similar pseudosciences, which have been debunked, but continue to fascinate the general public.

    A combination of logical fallacies (namely selective omission) and psychological factors, such as the Barnum Effect (whereby a statement or prediction is sufficiently vague for anyone to be able to find meaning in it) are at least in part responsible for the apparent resilience of such beliefs.

    With the emergence of social media, old posts occasionally resurface and become hyped as "prophecies." This type of content may be based on particularly astute analysis, but often it simply gets "shoehorned" to fit recent events, or represents a mere fraction of multiple "predictions" that did not materialize.

    Yazı kaynağı : www.newsweek.com

    Did a Scientist from Holland Predict the Earthquake in Turkey and Syria?

    Did a Scientist from Holland Predict the Earthquake in Turkey and Syria?

    On February 6th, the “prediction” of a Dutch seismologist, Frank Hoogerbeets, about the earthquake in Turkey was disseminated across various Facebook accounts (1, 2, 3, 4), Facebook pages and online media (1, 2, 3, 4). According to Frank Hoogerbeets, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake would “sooner or later” occur in southeastern Turkey, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

    On February 7th, a new forecast regarding earthquakes (1, 2) was published on Facebook, according to which a 6-point magnitude earthquake is expected in Georgia on February 9th.

    Frank Hoogerbeets is a pseudo-scientist whose predictions have no scientific value, as the theory that the alignment of the planets can predict earthquakes has long been rejected by scientists. Hoogerbeets often predicts impending devastating earthquakes, but his predictions have not happened in the past. In addition, he did not specify the exact date of the earthquake, as any natural disaster may occur “sooner or later.”

    As for the second claim about the expected earthquake in Georgia, the mentioned information is without evidence, as it is impossible to make short-term predictions about earthquakes and determine the exact time in advance.

    On February 3rd, 2023, Frank Hoogerbeetstweeted: “Sooner or later there will be a ~M 7.5 #earthquake in this region (South-Central Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon).” The popularity of the post on the social network was followed by a response from the scientific community, during which the validity of both the “forecast” and the methodology was questioned.

    American weekly online publicationNewsweek contacted geologist Roger Musson, former head of seismic hazards and archives at the British Geological Survey, with more than 35 years of experience in seismology. According to Musson, the forecast does not specify the exact time, so it cannot be considered a prophecy. “A prediction should state time, place and magnitude. ‘Sooner or later’ does not constitute a time. So he did not predict the quake.” says Musson.

    David Rothery, Professor of Planetary Geosciences at the Open University, told Newsweek in an email that the methodology behind the “forecast” is scientifically dubious, and even though the tweet was published two days before the earthquake, it cannot be considered a prophecy. It’s worth noting that there are a lot of similar predictions on Hoogerbeets’ Twitter account and SSGEOS, although neither of them preceded any high-magnitude tremors. Also, many of these forecasts are vague, covering vast areas that may still experience an earthquake or are already seismically active.

    At the end of December 2018, Hoogerbeets made aprediction of an earthquake with a magnitude greater than eight magnitudes, which was also considered doubtful by experts, who said that the planetary alignment has no effect on earthquakes, and an accurate prediction of an earthquake is not possible. It is also worth noting that in the last days and weeks of December 2018, there was not a single earthquake of magnitude 7 to 8 on Earth, and the strongest magnitude of 7.0 was recorded in the Philippines on December 29th, which was lower than the predicted rate. Given that dozens of earthquakes occur every day around the world, it is possible that any one prediction could be right by chance.

    In 2017, the American fact-checking organization Snopes alsowrote about Hoogerbeets. A Dutch “seismologist”, who calls himself an earthquake “enthusiast”, also claimed in 2017 that due to the planetary alignment, the US, Chile, Peru, Indonesia and the Philippines were at risk of strong earthquakes (magnitude 8.0) between February 24th and March 8th, 2017. According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), earthquakes were recorded in Peru and Indonesia during that period, but none of them caused damage. It should also be noted that Indonesia is located in an extremely active seismic zone.

    The theory that the alignment of the planets can predict earthquakes has long been rejected by scientists. According to US Geological Survey, no scientist can predict a specific earthquake but can calculate the probability of future temblors.

    Frank Hoogerbeets calls himself anSSGEOS researcher who “has the greatest respect for the planets, especially Earth.” Hoogerbeets’ organizationSSGEOS monitors the geometry of celestial bodies in relation to seismic activity. Seismology is the branch of geophysics responsible for the study of earthquakes or tremors that occur within the Earth and on the Earth’s surface. As for planetary geometry, it is a field of astrology and has nothing to do with science. Significantly, no scientific articles or studies are found under the name of Hoogerbeets, and he makes predictions based on specific geometrical positions of the planets, moon and sun.

    Should we expect an Earthquake in Georgia on February 9th?

    Information about an expected earthquake in Georgia was circulated based on a message from WhatsApp. However, this suspicion has no scientific basis. In apost published on February 7th, Tea Godoladze, director of the Institute of Earth Sciences and the National Seismic Monitoring Center of Ilia State University, writes that there is no danger of an earthquake in Georgia at this stage, and also notes that it is impossible to make short-term forecasts in seismology. According to Godoladze, at this stage, the border of the Arabian plate and the Turkish block, the East Anatolia fault, is activated, although it is a different tectonic unit and is not connected to Georgia.

    The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.

    Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
    Read detailed appeal instructions

    Yazı kaynağı : mythdetector.ge

    No, It Is Not Possible to Predict an Earthquake

    No, It Is Not Possible to Predict an Earthquake

    In early February 2023, a major earthquake hit parts of Turkey and Syria, leading to a death toll of 19,000 (as of this writing) that steadily rose as rescue efforts continued. As news about the earthquake spread, so did disinformation about supposed predictions surrounding this tragedy. 

    Frank Hoogerbeets, a Dutch man claiming to be a "researcher" of seismic activity, stated that he had predicted this event. In a tweet he wrote: "As I stated earlier, sooner or later this would happen in this region, similar to the years 115 and 526. These earthquakes are always preceded by critical planetary geometry, as we had on 4-5 Feb."

    Hoogerbeets appears to be associated with an organization known as Solar System Geometry Survey (SSGEOS). The same organization also tweeted out a claim that there was "Potential for stronger seismic activity in or near the purple band 1-6 days. This is an estimate. Other regions are not excluded." The region appeared to be around India and Pakistan. 


    These claims of predicting earthquakes are false and have no basis in scientific fact. We debunked Hoogerbeets' claims back in 2017, and other false earthquake predictions before. 

    The United States Geological Survey (USGS) categorically states that earthquakes have never been predicted before. Their website says, "Neither the USGS nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake. We do not know how, and we do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future. USGS scientists can only calculate the probability that a significant earthquake will occur (shown on our hazard mapping) in a specific area within a certain number of years."

    They point out that any predictions must define three elements: " 1) the date and time, 2) the location, and 3) the magnitude." 

    Hoogerberts' claim that the earthquake was predicted from "critical planetary geometry" is contradicted by the USGS' major criteria. They state that "earthquakes have nothing to do with clouds, bodily aches and pains, or slugs" and rely only on "scientific evidence."  

    The role of planetary alignments in earthquakes has long been rebuffed by scientists. Back in 2017, we spoke to Andrew Michael, a geophysicist with USGS, who said in a statement to Snopes that alignment-based predictions are "easy to refute." He told us:

    Many of Hoogerbeets' claims also fall into a pattern that manages to be both specific and general at the same time, something USGS argues is common in alleged quake predictions. For example in this particular tweet, SSGEOS claims a broad swath of land will see an earthquake within a specific range of time ("1-4 days"), while adding, "This is an estimate. Other regions not excluded." Excluding other regions opens up the prediction to even more interpretation and allows someone to claim being correct just with an estimate. 

    This falls into the pattern described by USGS as "so general that there will always be an earthquake that fits; such as, (a) There will be a M4 earthquake somewhere in the U.S. in the next 30 days. (b) There will be a M2 earthquake on the west coast of the U.S. today." 

    Susan Hough, a seismologist in the Earthquake Hazards Program at USGS, told NPR that Hoogerbeets' claims are attempts to gain attention for "scattershot statements and predictions" that seem to have been borne out. "So, yeah, it's the stopped clock that's right twice a day, basically," she said.

    This is not to say that one cannot estimate the probability of earthquakes occurring in specific areas, and then preparing for them. The area in Turkey is the site of frequent seismic activity, where three tectonic plates converge. 

    "Turkey's a known earthquake zone. We've known about these faults, we know earthquakes this size are possible," Hough added. She emphasized that the need is for preparedness, and not to focus on predictions.

    "One of my colleagues told me years ago that we can predict earthquakes to the extent that we need to," she told NPR. "We know they're going to happen, and we know that certain parts of the world are going to be exposed to them and that we just need to build the environment accordingly." 

    The Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN), operated by the University of Washington and University of Oregon, detailed past attempts to predict earthquakes:

    The network even mentioned the most successful example of a "prediction," in China:

    The group added, "Predictions claimed as 'successes' may rely on a restatement of well-understood long-term geologic earthquake hazards, or be so broad and vague that they are fulfilled by typical background seismic activity."

    Scientists have found some ways to give people warnings. USGS has built a system called ShakeAlert that sends a notification to a person's phone and provides 20 seconds to a minute advance notice before an earthquake occurs. The technology uses data gathered from USGS field station sensors that can measure the intensity of the ground shaking. 

    But how does one measure the probability of massive seismic disruptions? According to Franklin Wolfe, a researcher at the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University:

    Tim Wright of the U.K.-based Centre for Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tectonics (COMET) told Al Jazeera that after a large earthquake, a lot of data can be collected and deciphered, and some of it is useful. "We can make calculations about places that are more or less likely to have earthquakes as a result of [another]," he said.  

    Wright was awaiting data from a European satellite that will pass over southern Turkey after the 2023 earthquake to figure out how strain builds at known faults, to calculate how much energy could be released in a specific area, and the rate at which it would be released. Even with that information, scientists don't know when the next earthquake could be. "We don't know whether it could be a single magnitude 8 earthquake or ten magnitude 7 earthquakes," he said. 

    Michel Bruneau, a professor at the University at Buffalo and earthquake engineering expert, told the Associated Press, "You can still do averages. You can still run statistics. [...] You can say, what's the return period between small, medium and large earthquakes, and then run statistical analysis through all of that." 

    "Scientists have tried every possible method to try to predict earthquakes. [...] Nobody has been able to crack it and make a credible prediction," he added

    We therefore this rate this claim as "False."

    Yazı kaynağı : www.snopes.com

    Yorumların yanıtı sitenin aşağı kısmında

    Ali : bilmiyorum, keşke arkadaşlar yorumlarda yanıt versinler.

    Yazının devamını okumak istermisiniz?
    Yorum yap