28. Why Can’t We Predict Earthquakes?

We talk to a U. S. Geological Survey physicist about the science -- and folly -- of predicting earthquakes. There are lots of known knowns; and, fortunately, not too many unknown unknowns. But it's the known unknowns -- the timing of the next Big One -- that are the most dangerous.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. The best investments are the ones you make in yourself, and no one knows that better than Southern New Hampshire University. With more than 200 online degree programs, no set class times, and low online tuition, Southern New Hampshire University is built to fit your life today and set you up for success tomorrow. Education is an investment. Why not make it a smart one? Apply for free at SNHU.edu/freakonomics. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing

• 0:42Stephen J. Dubner?

  happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it, which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life? Like banking, for example? Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank: brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member FDIC. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Amica. You know what they say, if you want to go fast, go alone.

• 1:25Stephen J. Dubner?

  If you want to go far, go together. So, go with Amica and get coverage from a mutual insurer that's built for their customers, one that looks after what's important to you together. Auto, home, life, and more, coverage that fits your unique needs. Amica helps you protect what matters most. Visit amica.com and get a quote today. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you create finished work.

• 2:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the Scheduled Tasks feature, and the whole time, you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.

• 2:34Stephen J. Dubner?

  The Tohoku earthquake off the Japanese coast on March 11th measured 9.0 on the Richter scale. That's the fourth biggest recorded earthquake in the world since 1900. The worst in Japan since modern instruments were first used 130 years ago. The earthquake and the tsunami it triggered led to shocking damage: loss of life, loss of property, all sorts of aftermath issues. But, as shocking as the damage has been, the earthquake itself wasn't all that surprising. Seismologists, the scientists who study earthquakes, they know a great deal about where they're likely to occur and how serious they're likely to be. The fact is that, according to the USGS, that's the United States Geological Survey,

• 3:19Stephen J. Dubner?

  several million earthquakes happen around the world every year. Only a select few make a sit-up and take notice. Japan, unfortunately, is one of the places where those select few tend to occur. So, how good are we at predicting the next big earthquake? How good are we at prediction in general? That's the theme of an hour-long special we're producing right now, to air later this year on public radio stations. Predicting the future is almost impossible. That said, human beings are practically addicted to prediction. With something as serious as earthquakes, you can't blame them.

• 4:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  That's what the Japanese earthquake sounded like, as recorded beneath the ocean's surface by Japan's Agency for Marine Earth Science and Technology.

• 4:19Stephen J. Dubner?

  We walk in there, not a good idea.

• 4:21Speaker 01

  Watch where you step.

• 4:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, you go first. Back in the fall, I visited the USGS office in Menlo Park, California. It sits just a few miles from the San Andreas Fault, the most serious earthquake threat in this country. At the time, the most recent earthquakes in memory had been in Haiti and Chile, not in Japan. I wanted to talk to a geophysicist about earthquake prediction. I knew they had a machine there in the lab. Okay, so describe just where we are.

• 4:52Speaker 01

  So we're in one of the laboratories where we have a very large machine that simulates earthquakes. Now, this particular apparatus does something very interesting. It starts sliding slowly, initially in a small spot, and that slow sliding will grow to a critical size until an earthquake happens.

• 5:11Stephen J. Dubner?

  That sound you heard, that was actually the sound of the scientist slapping his hand on the machine. The real sound the machine makes is about like this.

• 5:22Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 5:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  So I've got to admit, when I first heard about the USGS's earthquake simulator, I envisioned something a little more dramatic, some kind of amusement park ride or something. But it's just a metal frame a few yards across with a big slab of rock inside, and the frame is compressed by hydraulic pressure. The earthquake it simulates, then, is vanishingly small. But still, how does this sound translate into that? And how can that knowledge be used to predict the next big one, whether it's in Japan, in Chile, or in California?

• 6:16Speaker 02

  From WNYC and APM, American Public Media, this is Freakonomics Radio. Today, earthquakes, equations, and the people ask to predict the big one. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.

• 6:31Stephen J. Dubner?

  Meet the scientist who is good enough to talk me through the science of earthquake prediction.

• 6:37Speaker 01

  My name is Bill Ellsworth, and I'm a geophysicist at the US Geological Survey.

• 6:41Stephen J. Dubner?

  Ellsworth is a genial guy, low-key and soft-spoken, in his 60s, with eyeglasses and a trim white beard, bald on top. He looks like a guy who's very comfortable spending long days in the lab, digging into the earthquake data. But I wanted to know if he'd ever experienced a real quake.

• 7:00Speaker 01

  The most exciting earthquake I've been in was the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. And I was, it was at the end of the workday and I was closing down my computer, going home to enjoy the World Series.

• 7:10Speaker 03

  Game three of the 1989 World Series.

• 7:13Speaker 01

  When I felt something that I'd never experienced before. It was a very low-frequency wave, but very large amplitude, large enough that you noticed something was going on. And I fortunately guessed that this was the P wave, the fast-running wave of an earthquake, and that the S wave, the strong shaking wave, was to come later. So I immediately got up, moved to the doorframe in my office, placed myself there, and rode through the sheer wave, which shook the building hard enough that you could hear things racking and moving, you could hear the beams shaking, you could hear things falling. As soon as the shaking had stopped, I walked, the lights were out, since we'd lost electrical

• 7:55Speaker 01

  power throughout the region, which meant that the high-tech digital telephones were dead. I walked down the hall where I knew there was an old-fashioned analog telephone and called my colleagues at the USGS headquarters back in Reston, Virginia, who were also getting ready to enjoy the ballgame, and said, "Our world has just changed." And indeed, it had.

• 8:19Stephen J. Dubner?

  I see you're wearing a wedding ring. You're married now, I guess. Were you married then?

• 8:23Speaker 01

  I was, indeed.

• 8:24Stephen J. Dubner?

  But the fact is that after the earthquake hit here, your first phone call was to your USGS seismology colleagues, not to your wife. Is that true?

• 8:33Speaker 01

  It is true. She knew that when the earthquake hit someday, that she wasn't going to see me for a while. But I did contact her shortly thereafter, and things were fine at home.

• 8:44Stephen J. Dubner?

  But that's what happens when you marry a seismologist and you live in Northern California, right?

• 8:48Speaker 01

  I'm afraid so.

• 8:50Stephen J. Dubner?

  Ellsworth and his wife were all right after the Loma Prieta earthquake, or as some people remember it, the World Series earthquake. It hit 6.9 on the Richter scale, killed 63 people in Northern California. The official death toll from the Japanese earthquake has already passed 9,000, and will likely go much higher. There are all kinds of reasons to want to know as much as possible about the next big earthquake, to be able to predict as much as you can, as accurately as you can. So that's what I asked Ellsworth about. Where does the word prediction fall into this?

• 9:24Speaker 01

  Well, we're interested in predicting three things about earthquakes. One is where will they occur? The second is, how strong will they shake the ground when they do occur? And then the third question is, when will they occur? The first two are in pretty good shape, actually. The third one is the really tough problem.

• 9:40Stephen J. Dubner?

  And I'm guessing that when you go to a friend's house, there's a cocktail party, a barbecue, is that what they want to know from you? Is it, Bill, when is the big one? And how do I get out of here?

• 9:52Speaker 01

  That's usually the question they ask. And my response is usually, that's a little bit like asking, should I be buckling up my seatbelt in my car just before the accident? Better to put it on ahead of time and better to be planning for, you know, how to drive safely and not worry about when something bad might happen. If you're prepared, you'll get through the event OK.

• 10:13Stephen J. Dubner?

  Do you feel that there's too much emphasis or too much attention paid to the prediction part of what you do?

• 10:20Speaker 01

  You know, it's always a very popular topic. Since no one knows how to predict earthquakes, it's kind of an open field and people with all sorts of interesting ideas like to get involved. We were, I think, quite optimistic at the beginning of the program that prediction was something we could do through our understanding of the basic mechanics. And as time has gone by, I think we've been sobered by what we've seen, that if earthquakes are predictable, we don't yet know how to do it. And there's a good chance that they're not predictable.

• 10:48Stephen J. Dubner?

  Talk a minute about the belief among certain people that they are very good at predicting earthquakes.

• 10:53Speaker 01

  I think there are many people who have the belief that they can predict earthquakes. And the real question is, can you show that you made a prediction before the fact? And that that prediction can be tested in a scientific manner. We can certainly say that there's going to be a magnitude five earthquake in the world somewhere today. That's an easy prediction. We can probably say there's going to be a magnitude six earthquake in California in the next 100 years. That's a gimme. But in terms of making a prediction that is really testable, that's a much harder thing to do. One of the very interesting things that was done years ago, this was back in the days of telephone answering machines. We had a project that had a group of volunteers, people who had animals that were very sensitive to the coming of earthquakes.

• 11:39Speaker 01

  And the instructions were that when there are animals that acted up, they were to call the number and leave a message. There were never any messages left before earthquakes. But lots of messages left after earthquakes and, oh, they had meant to call, but they didn't.

• 11:52Stephen J. Dubner?

  So in other words, moments before the earthquake, I noticed my cat was pacing back and forth.

• 11:57Speaker 01

  That's the kind of thing, exactly.

• 12:03Stephen J. Dubner?

  We are speaking here at the USGS offices in Menlo Park, California, which is how far from San Andreas Fault line?

• 12:13Speaker 01

  San Andreas is about six or seven miles up the hill from us here, so we're, we're living in earthquake country, definitely. We estimate that in the next 30 years, there is a better than two to one chance that we're going to be hit by a fairly major earthquake, like the one that hit in 1989.

• 12:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  And where do you live?

• 12:30Speaker 01

  I live here in Menlo Park.

• 12:32Stephen J. Dubner?

  So you live a few miles from the San Andreas Fault line and a little bit further, maybe, from a few others, yeah? Does it keep you up at night?

• 12:42Speaker 01

  It doesn't keep me up at night. You know, my house is 60 years old or so and likely will have some, some damage if an earthquake strikes. I don't think it's, has any chance of collapsing, so I think we'll get through the earthquake okay. But it's, it's a hazard that I feel I can live with.

• 13:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  You say that the odds that a serious earthquake will hit this area where we're sitting now by 2040 are significant. Damages would be significant, potentially loss of life significant, yes? We're agreed on that?

• 13:13Speaker 01

  We are agreed on that, and we've made some estimates based upon the repeat of a big earthquake on the, on the Hayward Fault, and that would be really a very serious event. We'd be talking about many tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars in losses.

• 13:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  Do you ever just say, why the heck do people live in obvious potential harms way? So we see with hurricanes that people have been flocking by the millions to the places where hurricanes happen a lot. California, which has probably more earthquake danger than any other state, I'm guessing, per, per mile, per capita, would that be true?

• 13:46Speaker 01

  Well, we have the most exposure, in terms of people who are exposed to earthquakes. You know, we have earthquakes that are just as severe in many, many other states. Perhaps what we have done a better job of in the West is adopting the codes that are necessary for structures to survive earthquakes. I could, you know, draw a parallel perhaps between two earthquakes that happened this year with very, very different effects. Neither were within the US, but this past September, there was a magnitude seven earthquake just outside the city of Christchurch in New Zealand. And this earthquake did tremendous damage to chimneys and things within the city. There were many older brick buildings that collapsed, but fortunately, it occurred in the middle of the night and there were no lives lost. That earthquake is really

• 14:29Speaker 01

  no different in size and in severity than the one that hit Haiti in January. And look at the difference there. Engineering does work.

• 14:38Stephen J. Dubner?

  There are obviously big earthquakes and small earthquakes. The big ones are the ones that people hear about, the ones that people care about. How many earthquakes, however, are there in a given day around the world, let's say?

• 14:50Speaker 01

  Well, we typically see an earthquake of about magnitude six once a week globally. And the way that earthquakes work, if you have one magnitude six, you'll probably have 10 magnitude fives, and you'll have 100 magnitude fours, and 1,000 magnitude threes. And it just goes on and on down the Richter scale. So in a sense, the earth has organized itself in an interesting way, that the worst it does is in the biggest earthquake, but those are the rarest ones. So instead of being peppered with damaging earthquakes every day, we get the big one once a century.

• 15:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  Coming up, what small earthquakes can tell us about the big one, and what geophysicists think of the public's understanding and misunderstanding of earthquake predictions. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Quince. You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself wearing on repeat? The sweater that goes with everything, the perfect pair of pants, or the tee you somehow always reach for first? Those are the pieces that

• 16:06Stephen J. Dubner?

  make getting dressed easy, and that's what Quince does best. Quince focuses on high-quality wardrobe staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and merino wool. The styles are timeless, versatile, and designed to become the dependable pieces you reach for day after day. And it's not just clothing. Quince brings that same approach to everything they make, from hotel-quality bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and thoughtfully-designed furniture. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com/freak. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too.

• 16:50Stephen J. Dubner?

  That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com/freak.

• 16:58Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring, great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it. Which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life? Like banking, for example. Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely-not-YOLO type. PNC Bank: brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member FDIC.

• 17:46Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must-haves, like gym access or breakfast, just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work-travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details.

• 18:20Speaker 02

  From WNYC and APM, American Public Media, this is Freakonomics Radio. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.

• 18:28Stephen J. Dubner?

  We're in California, where big earthquakes have happened and caused real damage in recent years and in faraway years. So talk to me a bit about what the future looks like here and how scared we should be.

• 18:41Speaker 01

  Unlike the atmosphere, which meteorologists work with, we can't see underground. And also, unlike the meteorological situation, we don't have satellites that allow us to map the system. We don't even really know the equations that govern the way that earthquakes work. And it turns out that the small earthquakes are one of the most important things that we can gather. They actually allow us to map out in space where the faults are. And from that, we can then begin to build these physical models that hopefully will lead to more accurate predictions in the future.

• 19:11Stephen J. Dubner?

  But did you just say that you don't really understand the equations that describe the way earthquakes work?

• 19:18Speaker 01

  That is correct. We have-

• 19:20Stephen J. Dubner?

  I was feeling, I was starting to feel safer around you, and all of a sudden-

• 19:24Speaker 01

  Well, we know a lot about how seismic waves propagate in the Earth. That we understand. But what actually happens on the fault the moment when the earthquake starts? What leads up to the occurrence of the earthquake? And how does that propagate? We've got some good models, but we don't have any other real samples of faults that are active today. So, science moves forward by people putting something on the line, and then you have to see what happens. If your prediction is correct, it doesn't mean your theory is correct. It means that it's possible. If your prediction is wrong, then it tells you something is wrong with your theory. What people don't remember about science is you can't prove something is true, but you can prove that it's false.

• 20:06Speaker 01

  So we're always working in this duality of trying to build better theories, better models, that can explain the natural world, but knowing that ultimately, they're going to fail some tests. The good models work well. The bad models go away in a hurry.

• 20:21Stephen J. Dubner?

  Should I move here? Will there be an earthquake here? My children are eight and 10. Will there be an earthquake here in their lifetime that is potentially devastating to us?

• 20:30Speaker 01

  There's certainly a very good chance there would be an earthquake, but there's really no reason not to move here. Public schools are one of the safest places to be for your children.

• 20:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  Oh, so you're saying it's okay if they're in school, but what I'm worried about them being on the weekend, I'm worried about.

• 20:42Speaker 01

  So on the weekend, you need to think through what your hazard is. You should probably look at the house you live in as well and decide, is this one that's earthquake safe? Do I have things that are going to fall down and injure someone in bed? You spend a third of your life in the bed, make sure that nothing's going to fall on you there and kill you. Have a plan. These are the kind of things that we remind people to do, and if you take those very sensible steps, the earthquake problem is not going to be the most severe thing that you have to experience in your lifetime.

• 21:10Stephen J. Dubner?

  What is that?

• 21:12Speaker 01

  I wish I knew, but it won't be that.

• 21:14Stephen J. Dubner?

  What did people used to think caused earthquakes?

• 21:17Speaker 01

  The Greeks thought they were related to gases escaping from the earth. Of course, in Japan, the tradition is that the islands are riding on the back of the big catfish that shakes his tail from time to time. But the scientific understanding of earthquakes really developed in the 19th century when people began to collect systematic observations and realize that there was something that was mappable about the earthquake shaking. In a sense, rocks are a relatively simple system that everybody knows they're brittle. If you strain them hard enough, they're going to fracture. But they're also elastic, that if you push on them, but not to the point of breaking, and then release the force, it'll spring back. And that's exactly what happens in an earthquake.

• 22:02Speaker 01

  Most of the rock is behaving elastically, except the inelastic part along the fault. And it's that inelastic part which is the challenge for us to understand.

• 22:10Stephen J. Dubner?

  So last year, there were a pair of very large earthquakes, one of which was wildly devastating in terms of property and life, the other one somewhat so, one in Haiti, one in Chile. And it seemed as though much of the world thought there was an earthquake epidemic upon us. Was there? Is there such a thing?

• 22:32Speaker 01

  You know, we've looked at that question, where there are an unusual number of large earthquakes, either this past year or the past decade, and the answer is no, that they're all within statistical norms. And it's when we have a couple of events in a row that impact society that we hear about it. There were bigger earthquakes that were out in the middle of the ocean than nobody had ever heard of. So from a global perspective, we're not looking at a kind of a global earthquake cluster.

• 22:58Stephen J. Dubner?

  What has your work in seismology taught you about the human yearning for prediction in general?

• 23:07Speaker 01

  Well, we love black and white answers, I think, and it's very difficult for people to grapple with concepts of probability. So if I say that there's 100% chance that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, people will be pretty confident that that's going to happen. But if you tell them that simply by commuting in their car today, they've increased their risk of dying today by a factor of 1,000 as opposed to staying home, they have trouble grappling with that. It certainly doesn't freeze us out of our cars, but it indicates to me that we have a long ways to go as human beings to understand low probability events and how to take effective and wise actions in the light of those.

• 23:48Stephen J. Dubner?

  There's something weirdly satisfying about hearing an expert say, without reservations, that the future is impossible to predict. In just about any realm you can think of, finance and politics, parenting, most experts will tell you that they have all the answers about the past, the present, and the future. It barely matters that they're often wrong, that they're only right about as often as a monkey with a dartboard would be right. What matters is that our thirst for prediction is so severe that we'll drink it up again and again and again.

• 24:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  But a scientist like Bill Ellsworth, even with all the data at his fingertips and all the computer modeling money can buy, he admits that predicting earthquakes, to some degree, escapes him. I've got to say, I find some comfort in that admission. If the first step in dealing with a problem is admitting you have a problem, then maybe the first step toward predicting the future is admitting you can't, or something like that. You'll hear a lot more on this topic this summer on Freakonomics Radio on a public radio station near you and at Freakonomics.com.

• 25:17Speaker 02

  Freakonomics Radio is a co-production of WNYC, APM American Public Media, and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Sean Wen and Christina Russo and mixed by David Herman. Our staff includes Susie Lechtenberg, Chris Neary, Colin Campbell, and Borey Lam. Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes and you'll get the next episode in your sleep. You can find more audio at FreakonomicsRadio.com. And as always, if you want to read more about the hidden side of everything, go to Freakonomics.com.

• 25:56Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by EverPure. Is the value of AI not living up to the promise? The problem is probably your data, not your AI models. When it's scattered across different systems, getting your data AI-ready is a challenge. You keep your AI waiting and everything slows down. EverPure unifies your data so you can see it, understand it, and control it all from one simple place and get it AI-ready fast. Unlock the true value of your AI at EverPureData.com.

• 26:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible. And when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 and 9mg, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide. And ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic pill.

• 26:58Speaker 04

  This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often, your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Repey as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.

• 27:28Speaker 05

  3 o'clock, kids are home. Your to-do list isn't done. New Kraft Mac and Cheese Power Mac was made for days like this. Kraft Mac and Cheese Power Mac packs the same irresistible creamy, cheesy flavor you love, now with 17 grams of protein and 6 grams of fiber. Fuels you up, keeps you going, because your day doesn't stop. Kraft Mac and Cheese Power Mac. Find it at your favorite retailer. The best thing ever keeps getting better.