USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70243549

Earthquake prediction lessons from Parkfield Experiment

Abstract

In 1985, the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC), and later its California counterpart (CEPEC), approved an earthquake prediction for the first time. This was the Bakun and Lindh [1985] forecast, with 95% confidence, that an M = 5.5 to 6 earthquake would rupture along the San Andreas fault near the town of Parkfield before 1993. This forecast was an important factor in selecting the Parkfield area for a major geophysical and geological monitoring study. The experiments installed there are aimed at producing a better understanding of the earthquake generation process and earthquake effects, gaining experience with real-time monitoring of a variety of geophysical data, and, if possible, making a short-term prediction of the future earthquake. Twenty-eight different observational networks now exist in the Parkfield area. The forecast also generated interest that led researchers to reexamine past Parkfield earthquakes with current knowledge and to develop new models of the earthquake cycle.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.99343084768685° to 36.177034842084765° latitude; -120.66912608588723° to -120.26827403368256° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Andrew J. Michael, John O. Langbein. 2011-06-03. Earthquake prediction lessons from Parkfield Experiment. https://doi.org/10.1029/93eo00313

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Credit where credit is due

Credit is the currency of science. Scientists are evaluated and promoted in their jobs and professional communities on the basis of their recognized contributions to science. Unlike a financial contribution, a scientific contribution is difficult to measure. Traditionally, credit for scientific contributions has been given through authorship and citations in scientific literature as well as awards and the naming of geographic features, instruments, and methods and other honorifics. However, these practices do not capture the breadth and depth of the contributions by all actors in modern, open science.

Eos Science News