Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics

2011 Edition
| Editors: Harsh K. Gupta

Earthquake Prediction, M8 Algorithm

  • Alik Ismail-Zadeh
  • Vladimir Kossobokov
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8702-7_157


An earthquake is a sudden movement within the Earth’s crust or the upper mantle that releases tectonic stress and, usually, originates seismic waves. The hierarchy of movable lithospheric volumes composes a large nonlinear dynamical system. Prediction of such a system in a sense of extrapolation of trajectory into the future is futile. However, upon coarse-graining the integral empirical regularities emerge opening possibilities of earthquake prediction (Keilis-Borok et al., 2001).

Earthquake predictionis a statement about future earthquake occurrence based on the information, data, and scientific methods that are available now. To predict an earthquake, someone “must specify the expected magnitude range, the geographical area within which it will occur, and the time interval within which it will happen with sufficient precision so that the ultimate success or failure of the prediction can readily be judged. Only by careful recording and analysis of failures as well as...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Allen, C. R., Edwards, W., Hall, W. J., Knopoff, L., Raleigh, C. B., Savit, C. H., Toksoz, M. N., and Turner, R. H., 1976. Predicting Earthquakes: A Scientific and Technical Evaluation – With Implications for Society. Panel on Earthquake Prediction of the Committee on Seismology, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council. Washington: U.S. National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  2. Bakun, W. H., and Lindh, A. G., 1985. The Parkfield, California, earthquake prediction experiment. Science, 229, 619–624.Google Scholar
  3. Gorshkov, A. I., Kossobokov, V., and Soloviev, A., 2003. Recognition of earthquake-prone areas. In Keilis-Borok, V. I., and Soloviev, A. A. (eds.), Nonlinear Dynamics of the Lithosphere and Earthquake Prediction. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 239–310.Google Scholar
  4. Healy, J. H., Kossobokov, V. G., and Dewey, J. W., 1992. A test to evaluate the earthquake prediction algorithm, M8. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Report, 92–401, 23 p. with 6 Appendices.Google Scholar
  5. Ismail-Zadeh, A., 2010. Computational geodynamics as a component of comprehensive seismic hazards analysis. In Beer, T. (ed.), Geophysical Hazards: Minimizing Risk and Maximizing Awareness. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 161–178.Google Scholar
  6. Keilis-Borok, V. I., 1990. The lithosphere of the Earth as a nonlinear system with implications for earthquake prediction. Reviews of Geophysics, 28, 19–34.Google Scholar
  7. Keilis-Borok, V. I., and Kossobokov, V. G., 1990. Premonitory activation of earthquake flow: algorithm M8. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 61, 73–83.Google Scholar
  8. Keilis-Borok, V. I., Ismail-Zadeh, A. T., Kossobokov, V. G., and Shebalin, P. N., 2001. Non-linear dynamics of the lithosphere and intermediate-term earthquake prediction. Tectonophysics, 338(3–4), 247–259.Google Scholar
  9. Kossobokov, V., 1997. User Manual for M8. In Healy, J. H., Keilis-Borok, V. I., and Lee, W. H. K. (eds.), Algorithms for Earthquake Statistics and Prediction. IASPEI Software Library. El Cerrito: Seismological Society of America, Vol. 6, pp. 1–167.Google Scholar
  10. Kossobokov, V., 2006. Quantitative earthquake prediction on global and regional scales. In Ismail-Zadeh, A. (ed.), Recent Geodynamics, Georisk and Sustainable Development in the Black Sea to Caspian Sea Region. Conference Proceedings. New York: American Institute of Physics, Vol. 825, pp. 32–50.Google Scholar
  11. Kossobokov, V., and Shebalin, P., 2003. Earthquake prediction. In Keilis-Borok, V. I., and Soloviev, A. A. (eds.), Nonlinear Dynamics of the Lithosphere and Earthquake Prediction. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 141–207.Google Scholar
  12. Kossobokov, V. G., Keilis-Borok, V. I., and Smith, S. W., 1990. Localization of intermediate-term earthquake prediction. Journal of Geophysical Research, 95(B12), 19763–19772.Google Scholar
  13. Kossobokov, V. G., Maeda, K., and Uyeda, S., 1999. Precursory activation of seismicity in advance of Kobe, 1995, M = 7.2 earthquake. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 155, 409–423.Google Scholar
  14. Lighthill, J. (ed.), 1996. A Critical Review of VAN: Earthquake Prediction from Seismic Electric Signals. Singapore: World Scientific Publication.Google Scholar
  15. Main, I., 1999. Is the reliable prediction of individual earthquakes a realistic scientific goal? Nature debates at http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/earthquake. Accessed 18 June 2010.
  16. Romashkova, L. L., 2008. Global-scale analysis of seismic activity prior to 2004 Sumatra-Andaman mega-earthquake. Tectonophysics, 470, 329–344.Google Scholar
  17. Working group on California earthquake probabilities, 1999. Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2000–2030 – A summary of findings. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 99–517.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geophysical InstituteKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.International Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical GeophysicsRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institut de Physique du GlobeParisFrance