What do you think?
Rate this book
Predicting the Unpredictable: The Tumultuous Science of Earthquake Prediction
Why seismologists still can't predict earthquakes
An earthquake can strike without warning and wreak horrific destruction and death, whether it's the cataclysmic 2008 Sichuan quake in China that killed tens of thousands or a future great earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in California, which scientists know is inevitable. Yet despite rapid advances in earthquake science, seismologists still can't predict when the Big One will hit. Predicting the Unpredictable is the first book to explain why, exploring the fact and fiction behind the science―and pseudoscience―of earthquake prediction.
Susan Hough traces the continuing quest by seismologists to forecast the time, location, and magnitude of future quakes―a quest fraught with controversies, spectacular failures, and occasional apparent successes. She brings readers into the laboratory and out into the field with the pioneers who have sought to develop reliable methods based on observable phenomena such as small earthquake patterns and electromagnetic signals. Hough describes attempts that have raised hopes only to collapse under scrutiny, as well as approaches that seem to hold future promise. She recounts stories of strange occurrences preceding massive quakes, such as changes in well water levels and mysterious ground fogs. She also ventures to the fringes of pseudoscience to consider ideas outside the scientific mainstream, from the enduring belief that animals can sense impending earthquakes to amateur YouTube videos purporting to show earthquake lights prior to large quakes.
This book is an entertaining and accessible foray into the world of earthquake prediction, one that illuminates the unique challenges of predicting the unpredictable.
An earthquake can strike without warning and wreak horrific destruction and death, whether it's the cataclysmic 2008 Sichuan quake in China that killed tens of thousands or a future great earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in California, which scientists know is inevitable. Yet despite rapid advances in earthquake science, seismologists still can't predict when the Big One will hit. Predicting the Unpredictable is the first book to explain why, exploring the fact and fiction behind the science―and pseudoscience―of earthquake prediction.
Susan Hough traces the continuing quest by seismologists to forecast the time, location, and magnitude of future quakes―a quest fraught with controversies, spectacular failures, and occasional apparent successes. She brings readers into the laboratory and out into the field with the pioneers who have sought to develop reliable methods based on observable phenomena such as small earthquake patterns and electromagnetic signals. Hough describes attempts that have raised hopes only to collapse under scrutiny, as well as approaches that seem to hold future promise. She recounts stories of strange occurrences preceding massive quakes, such as changes in well water levels and mysterious ground fogs. She also ventures to the fringes of pseudoscience to consider ideas outside the scientific mainstream, from the enduring belief that animals can sense impending earthquakes to amateur YouTube videos purporting to show earthquake lights prior to large quakes.
This book is an entertaining and accessible foray into the world of earthquake prediction, one that illuminates the unique challenges of predicting the unpredictable.
- GenresScienceNonfiction
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
5 people are currently reading
85 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 1, 2014
It was July 28, 1976, around 3:42 in the morning when the Tangshan earthquake hit. This particular earthquake claimed about 250,000 lives, and some believe that the true number of casualties was two or three times higher than this. This is one of many examples of earthquakes wreaking havoc on the human population, and thus making earthquakes one of earth’s biggest mysteries. Susan Hough discusses the evolution of predicting earthquakes in her book Predicting the Unpredictable; she puts the reader in a time machine and takes them back to the 1970s, the infancy of earthquake prediction in the United States, and then takes them all the way to what is happening in present day earthquake prediction.
Susan Hough starts her book out discussing the idea of the earthquake referred to as the, “Big One�, that is supposed to hit California one day. She notes that seismologists believe that the last great earthquake in California was over 100 years ago in 1906, and that California is long overdue for an earthquake larger than 7 on the Richter scale. Over the next three chapters Hough talks about how many scientists and spectators have tried to predict when the next big earthquake will happen and have failed. Generally each of these predictions is followed by headlines like the one seen in January of 2009 on the front page of the Los Angeles Times, “The southern stretch of the San Andres Fault has had a major temblor about every 137 years, according to new research. The latest looks to be overdue� (Hough 38). Along with giving plenty examples of failed predictions of the “Big One� she also gives the reader some insight on how earthquakes form in the first place. She talks about how tectonic plates rub against each other at fault lines and eventually the grid lock between plates gives out causing an earthquake.
Hough wraps up her first couple chapters with some calming words about earthquakes and how earthquakes have been very hard to predict, particularly the “Big One� in California. She talks about the idea of how individuals should take earthquake predictions with a grain of salt. Hough argues that there is no doubt that an earthquake will one day hit California, but the average predicted occurrence of earthquakes in California is just that, an average. So how can one narrow the dates on when the next earthquake will hit?
This is what Hough talks about in the rest of the book. She discusses the potential precursors that have been proposed over the last forty years, but she also weaves in commentary about how this hunt for the holy grail of precursors has changed the study of earthquakes. She discusses the glory days of seismologists and the USGS in 1975; this was when earthquake prediction was at its peak in the United States and got its first big funding from the government. Although Hough notes that this funding was not only for earthquake prediction but for earthquake risk management. She then moves onto what she calls, the hangover period of the 80s, in which many failed attempts at predicting earthquakes had discouraged individuals from focusing on earthquake prediction.
As Hough takes us in her time machine of earthquake precursors and the history of earthquake prediction, our final destination is the present day. In the last two chapters Hough discusses how there is no perfect way to predict earthquakes hence the title of the book. She also gives hope to the readers that one day this could change, but questions if earthquake prediction should continue to be the main focus of seismologists.
As a reader I could not help but be interested in the great mystery of earthquakes through the first 100 or so pages. I had very little knowledge of how earthquakes worked and how they were predicted. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the author spend time discussing how earthquakes work and how they are formed. In addition, I really liked how the author reassured readers in the beginning of the book that there was no need to panic about earthquakes. Earthquakes are a natural cycle of the earth, and although we cannot predict earthquakes, there is no need to spend large amounts of time worrying about them.
Although as I read I was continually let down by scientists and their failed precursor predictions. It was like watching a superhero movie where the seismologists was the hero and the earthquake was the villain, and the villain always won. Every precursor that was brought up by Hough was disproved by the end of the chapter; this led the reader to question whether the seismologists would ever be able to defeat the earthquake. On the flip side I think her intention was not to discourage the reader on precursor prediction, but to shed light on the idea of risk management for earthquakes being more important
Also Hough wanted the reader to understand that the study of earthquakes was more than finding out how to predict them. Most humans think earthquake prediction is important to their wellbeing and will save millions of lives, and for a long time seismologists have been trying to figure out what causes this domino effect of earthquakes; but Hough thinks that people should be more worried about what one domino, an individual earthquake, is like and not be concerned about the domino effect. Her process of leading the reader through continual heartbreak in the quest for perfect precursor helps convince the reader that seismologists should be concerned with other things than earthquake prediction. This idea of not chasing the Holy Grail also opens up a new discussion on earthquake research funding. If we already know that earthquakes will eventually happen why try to predict them? Why not invest money in trying to make structures more prepared for earthquakes? This is one of many questions that Hough makes the reader ponder.
Although I really enjoyed the book there were some things I did not enjoy as a reader. The first being the over emphasis on failed precursors. I understand that this book was supposed to talk about earthquake prediction and the history behind the science. But as a reader I got bored of reading about different earthquake predictions. I think that the author could have gotten to her point that there is no perfect way to predict earthquakes quicker. Both the VAN method and Vp/Vs method looked at waves that were traveling through rocks and both were disproven in the book. I understand the author was trying to show the history of both theories but things just seemed repetitive at times. After the first three failed precursors it was pretty easy to tell that the next three would also fail.
The other thing I wished the author would have touched upon more is the financial impacts of earthquakes. I understand that the book was primarily discussing the history of earthquake prediction, but it seems that the financial impacts of an earthquake hitting a city like Los Angeles would be massive. I believe it would have really strengthen her closing arguments on refocusing efforts from earthquake prediction to earthquake risk management. Now a days I do not know if a city like Los Angeles, with so much business, could afford a massive earthquake that could temporarily shut down the area for weeks.
Overall I enjoyed reading this book, however I would not recommend it to everyone. Although Susan Hough does a good job dumbing the science down, there were definitely a lot of complicated topics that caused me to do extra research outside of the book. However, if you are interested in how earthquakes work or how they might one day be predicted, this is a great read. Susan Hough makes the topic interesting and makes the reader question what should happened to earthquake prediction in the future.
Susan Hough starts her book out discussing the idea of the earthquake referred to as the, “Big One�, that is supposed to hit California one day. She notes that seismologists believe that the last great earthquake in California was over 100 years ago in 1906, and that California is long overdue for an earthquake larger than 7 on the Richter scale. Over the next three chapters Hough talks about how many scientists and spectators have tried to predict when the next big earthquake will happen and have failed. Generally each of these predictions is followed by headlines like the one seen in January of 2009 on the front page of the Los Angeles Times, “The southern stretch of the San Andres Fault has had a major temblor about every 137 years, according to new research. The latest looks to be overdue� (Hough 38). Along with giving plenty examples of failed predictions of the “Big One� she also gives the reader some insight on how earthquakes form in the first place. She talks about how tectonic plates rub against each other at fault lines and eventually the grid lock between plates gives out causing an earthquake.
Hough wraps up her first couple chapters with some calming words about earthquakes and how earthquakes have been very hard to predict, particularly the “Big One� in California. She talks about the idea of how individuals should take earthquake predictions with a grain of salt. Hough argues that there is no doubt that an earthquake will one day hit California, but the average predicted occurrence of earthquakes in California is just that, an average. So how can one narrow the dates on when the next earthquake will hit?
This is what Hough talks about in the rest of the book. She discusses the potential precursors that have been proposed over the last forty years, but she also weaves in commentary about how this hunt for the holy grail of precursors has changed the study of earthquakes. She discusses the glory days of seismologists and the USGS in 1975; this was when earthquake prediction was at its peak in the United States and got its first big funding from the government. Although Hough notes that this funding was not only for earthquake prediction but for earthquake risk management. She then moves onto what she calls, the hangover period of the 80s, in which many failed attempts at predicting earthquakes had discouraged individuals from focusing on earthquake prediction.
As Hough takes us in her time machine of earthquake precursors and the history of earthquake prediction, our final destination is the present day. In the last two chapters Hough discusses how there is no perfect way to predict earthquakes hence the title of the book. She also gives hope to the readers that one day this could change, but questions if earthquake prediction should continue to be the main focus of seismologists.
As a reader I could not help but be interested in the great mystery of earthquakes through the first 100 or so pages. I had very little knowledge of how earthquakes worked and how they were predicted. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the author spend time discussing how earthquakes work and how they are formed. In addition, I really liked how the author reassured readers in the beginning of the book that there was no need to panic about earthquakes. Earthquakes are a natural cycle of the earth, and although we cannot predict earthquakes, there is no need to spend large amounts of time worrying about them.
Although as I read I was continually let down by scientists and their failed precursor predictions. It was like watching a superhero movie where the seismologists was the hero and the earthquake was the villain, and the villain always won. Every precursor that was brought up by Hough was disproved by the end of the chapter; this led the reader to question whether the seismologists would ever be able to defeat the earthquake. On the flip side I think her intention was not to discourage the reader on precursor prediction, but to shed light on the idea of risk management for earthquakes being more important
Also Hough wanted the reader to understand that the study of earthquakes was more than finding out how to predict them. Most humans think earthquake prediction is important to their wellbeing and will save millions of lives, and for a long time seismologists have been trying to figure out what causes this domino effect of earthquakes; but Hough thinks that people should be more worried about what one domino, an individual earthquake, is like and not be concerned about the domino effect. Her process of leading the reader through continual heartbreak in the quest for perfect precursor helps convince the reader that seismologists should be concerned with other things than earthquake prediction. This idea of not chasing the Holy Grail also opens up a new discussion on earthquake research funding. If we already know that earthquakes will eventually happen why try to predict them? Why not invest money in trying to make structures more prepared for earthquakes? This is one of many questions that Hough makes the reader ponder.
Although I really enjoyed the book there were some things I did not enjoy as a reader. The first being the over emphasis on failed precursors. I understand that this book was supposed to talk about earthquake prediction and the history behind the science. But as a reader I got bored of reading about different earthquake predictions. I think that the author could have gotten to her point that there is no perfect way to predict earthquakes quicker. Both the VAN method and Vp/Vs method looked at waves that were traveling through rocks and both were disproven in the book. I understand the author was trying to show the history of both theories but things just seemed repetitive at times. After the first three failed precursors it was pretty easy to tell that the next three would also fail.
The other thing I wished the author would have touched upon more is the financial impacts of earthquakes. I understand that the book was primarily discussing the history of earthquake prediction, but it seems that the financial impacts of an earthquake hitting a city like Los Angeles would be massive. I believe it would have really strengthen her closing arguments on refocusing efforts from earthquake prediction to earthquake risk management. Now a days I do not know if a city like Los Angeles, with so much business, could afford a massive earthquake that could temporarily shut down the area for weeks.
Overall I enjoyed reading this book, however I would not recommend it to everyone. Although Susan Hough does a good job dumbing the science down, there were definitely a lot of complicated topics that caused me to do extra research outside of the book. However, if you are interested in how earthquakes work or how they might one day be predicted, this is a great read. Susan Hough makes the topic interesting and makes the reader question what should happened to earthquake prediction in the future.
December 18, 2016
It would be valuable to have reliable warning hours, or even minutes, in advance of a major earthquake. If we knew a quake was coming, we could evacuate seismically unsafe buildings, de-pressurize gas pipelines, have emergency responders on duty, etc. Because of the obvious value, this has been a major research area for decades, drawing interest from professionals, amateurs, and cranks. Alas, nobody has been able to reliably predict earthquakes.
This book describes those efforts at prediction, how they were tested, and why the problem is hard. The author is a professional seismologist, in total command of her material, and does a good job sticking to the topic without turning the book into a general history of seismology or geology textbook. There is enough scientific background that even a very casual reader can follow the narrative, but not so much as to bore the knowledgeable. The prose is competent, but with a slightly excessive tendency towards cliche.
In the author's account, the frustrating thing about earthquake prediction is that there's lots of signals that might imaginably be useful (changes in the speed of sound in the crust, low-frequency electromagnetic radiation, leaks of geological gas, foreshocks etc), lots of anecdote that "this signal preceded this quake", but nothing that really pans out statistically. When earthquakes happen in places with very good data collection, no useful signals are detected. The best we can say is that if there is an earthquake, there is a 5% chance of a bigger quake in the same place within three days.
Part of what makes the narrative engaging is that it explores the fraught boundary between science and wishful thinking -- and how scientists exploit the ambiguity. Earthquake prediction is an exciting idea that governments are willing to fund it. Respectable seismologists have historically been willing to nod and wink and suggest that "while we can't promise anything, if you give us a lot of money we might accomplish something!" Likewise, while we can't predict quakes in the short term, we can make long-range claims. There will *eventually* be a major earthquake in Southern California, and geologists have find it challenging to express the right level of risk awareness. "There is a good chance of a major earthquake this decade" sounds like a clear prediction, but actually doesn't mean very much.
I found this a quick, illuminating, and enjoyable read. If you are interested in how scientists interact with the public on matters of obvious concern, this is a good book to pick up.
This book describes those efforts at prediction, how they were tested, and why the problem is hard. The author is a professional seismologist, in total command of her material, and does a good job sticking to the topic without turning the book into a general history of seismology or geology textbook. There is enough scientific background that even a very casual reader can follow the narrative, but not so much as to bore the knowledgeable. The prose is competent, but with a slightly excessive tendency towards cliche.
In the author's account, the frustrating thing about earthquake prediction is that there's lots of signals that might imaginably be useful (changes in the speed of sound in the crust, low-frequency electromagnetic radiation, leaks of geological gas, foreshocks etc), lots of anecdote that "this signal preceded this quake", but nothing that really pans out statistically. When earthquakes happen in places with very good data collection, no useful signals are detected. The best we can say is that if there is an earthquake, there is a 5% chance of a bigger quake in the same place within three days.
Part of what makes the narrative engaging is that it explores the fraught boundary between science and wishful thinking -- and how scientists exploit the ambiguity. Earthquake prediction is an exciting idea that governments are willing to fund it. Respectable seismologists have historically been willing to nod and wink and suggest that "while we can't promise anything, if you give us a lot of money we might accomplish something!" Likewise, while we can't predict quakes in the short term, we can make long-range claims. There will *eventually* be a major earthquake in Southern California, and geologists have find it challenging to express the right level of risk awareness. "There is a good chance of a major earthquake this decade" sounds like a clear prediction, but actually doesn't mean very much.
I found this a quick, illuminating, and enjoyable read. If you are interested in how scientists interact with the public on matters of obvious concern, this is a good book to pick up.
March 18, 2010
This book is hard to rate because I picked it up looking for a specific answer to a question, not because I thought I would like it.
I was hanging out in the science library at OWU and this was on the featured book rack. Since there have been many bad earthquakes in the past couple of months, I've been very curious how earthquakes work and interact and, more importantly, if there is any way to prevent them.
This book answered the last question while going into the first questions a bit. I went into reading knowing almost nothing about earthquakes and, in some ways, the book was prepared for that. In other ways, it lost my interest half-way through since I'm not a seismologist in any way, shape, or form and I really didn't need/want to know some of the more scientific details.
I was hanging out in the science library at OWU and this was on the featured book rack. Since there have been many bad earthquakes in the past couple of months, I've been very curious how earthquakes work and interact and, more importantly, if there is any way to prevent them.
This book answered the last question while going into the first questions a bit. I went into reading knowing almost nothing about earthquakes and, in some ways, the book was prepared for that. In other ways, it lost my interest half-way through since I'm not a seismologist in any way, shape, or form and I really didn't need/want to know some of the more scientific details.
July 8, 2016
Susan Hough had written an extremely thought-provoking account on prediction research. Although she is mainly concerned with earthquake prediction, the same system of questions can be extended to other fields that require one to predict the next upcoming disaster. Are statistics enough, even when it is armed with full load of data?
There is a line we as people who are churning out these "models" should never cross. But the reality is, this line is thin, and grey. One cannot but remember that great minds had pondered over this dilemma: can we know what's gonna happen next even when we know every single event?
There is a line we as people who are churning out these "models" should never cross. But the reality is, this line is thin, and grey. One cannot but remember that great minds had pondered over this dilemma: can we know what's gonna happen next even when we know every single event?
July 6, 2016
This is extremely well written, engaging, interesting, and, at times, funny. I went into this just hoping to learn about earthquakes, because I realized I knew nothing. I walked away impressed with the author (I wouldn't expect a seismologist to be able to write this well), a deeper respect for the scientific method, and the earthquake knowledge I had been hoping for. If you are looking for a book about earthquakes and worried about being bored, this won't disappoint you.
November 26, 2011
There is some interesting history in this, but you really don't get much of a sense that there is much science in earthquake prediction. Perhaps that is the point, but the book takes over 200 pages to arrive at this frustrating conclusion.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.