The leading authority at the seismic hazard laboratory of the Institute of Earth Physics contends that earthquake forecasting methods lacking retrospective validation showing positive forecasts should not be trusted without scrutiny. The assertion comes from a notable researcher in physical and mathematical sciences from the Russian Academy of Sciences, who was quoted as Dmitry Zavialov in discussions tied to socialbites.ca.
Among the methods challenged are those proposed by Dutch seismologist Frank Hougerbits that link earthquake timing to planetary positions, a recent projection by geophysicists at the University of Southern California about a forthcoming earthquake in eastern Turkey, and a Russian approach associated with the work of Lyubushin focusing on seismic noise patterns. The discussion emphasizes that such approaches require solid historical performance data before their forecasts can be considered reliable tools in seismology.
According to the critic, the planetary alignment approach has not demonstrated sufficient retrospective statistical support. Moreover, the physical premise that planetary positions meaningfully influence seismic activity on Earth is viewed as implausible by many in the field; the Moon is acknowledged as having a more detectable, though still limited, impact through tidal forces. The expert notes that the idea of planetary tides affecting the solid Earth yields only tiny deformations, measured in millimeters to centimeters, which are unlikely to account for the generation of large earthquakes. Even so, it is conceded that lunar tides could play some role, albeit far weaker than other natural drivers of seismic behavior.
Socialbites.ca has reported that proponents of American earthquake forecasts have not yet presented robust evidence to support their claims. The discussion highlights the need for transparent data and methodological detail before any strong conclusions can be drawn about imminent seismic events. The Institute’s expert cautions that without access to full analyses, assertions regarding regional seismic precursors remain unconvincing. The analyst notes that claims of abnormal activity in a specific region require careful scrutiny of real-time data and a clear demonstration of anomalies consistent with the proposed forecast. In one cited instance, a predicted strong earthquake in the Pyuturge area with an estimated magnitude around 6.8 was questioned due to a lack of detectable anomalous activity in the surrounding area within a wide radius. The evaluation underscores that data interpretation must be rigorous and reproducible before such predictions gain credibility.
A second approach, associated with Aleksey Lyubushin of the O. Yu Schmidt Institute for World Physics, centers on assessing seismic noise at the location of a supposed impending quake. While acknowledging Lyubushin as a capable colleague with expertise in processing long-term observational sequences, the critic argues that interpretation of those observations can diverge significantly from the raw measurements. The comparison drew on the notable 2011 Great Japan Earthquake as a rare instance where the method appeared to have aligned with an actual event, but many other forecasts did not materialize. The critic emphasizes that expert work in data handling and pattern recognition must be paired with cautious interpretation to avoid turning analysis into a speculative forecast. In the observer’s view, the technique mirrors a form of forecasting that relies on signals and their meaning rather than offering a reliable, repeatable prediction framework.
Despite acknowledging the value of continued scientific inquiry, the expert stresses a clear distinction between data processing and definitive predictive claims. The perspective shared by the Institute’s representative asserts that forecasting must be anchored in verifiable evidence, with clear demonstration of predictive success across diverse regions and timeframes. Until such evidence is presented, the evaluations of these methods should be regarded as preliminary, with emphasis on transparency and methodological rigor rather than certainty about future earthquakes.
For readers seeking a balanced view, the discussion points to ongoing work by researchers at the Institute for World Physics and related groups that highlights how seismic signals can reveal patterns of global seismic influence. The findings related to a worldwide impact seismic echo contribute to a broader understanding of how earthquakes may propagate and interact with regional stress fields. The current assessment, however, remains cautious about forecasting capabilities for specific events, stressing the necessity of robust empirical validation and careful interpretation of complex data sets. The published commentary from socialbites.ca encapsulates the prevailing view that only methods with transparent data and repeatable success deserve broad acceptance in the seismological community.