Abstract. Not so many issues, that have such a divergence of view, as on the existence and nature of foreshock activation. The range here is from public admission, that the previously described effect of foreshock avalanche-like activation is nothing more than the result of (though unconscious) data fitting, to the cases of incredibly accurate predictions of the time of strong earthquakes (though retrospective). The article by A.I. Malyshev and L.K. Malysheva, published in the current issue, gave a reason to return to these disagreements again and to offer a possible explanation for them. The article referenced in the title and this message are published in the current issue of the journal in Russian and English.

For citation: Rodkin M.V. On the foreshock cascade and extraordinary forecasts in connection with the article by A.I. Malyshev and L.K. Malysheva “Precedent-extrapolation estimate of the seismic hazard in the Sakhalin and the Southern Kurils region”. Geosistemy perehodnykh zon = Geosystems of Transition Zones, 2021, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 128–137. (In Russ. & Engl.).
https://doi.org/10.30730/gtrz.2021.5.2.128-132.133-137

Для цитирования: Родкин М.В. О форшоковом каскаде и удивительных прогнозах, в связи со статьей А.И. Малышева и Л.К. Малышевой «Прецедентно-экстраполяционная оценка сейсмической опасности в районе Сахалина и Южных Курил». Геосистемы переходных зон, 2021, т. 5, № 2, с. 128–137.
https://doi.org/10.30730/gtrz.2021.5.2.128-132.133-137

1. Bak P. 1996. How Nature Works. New York: Springer-Verlag, 212 р. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5426-1

2. Bowman D.D., King G.C.P. 2001. Accelerating seismicity and stress accumulation before large earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(21): 4039–4042. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013022

3. Bowman D.D., Ouillon G., Sammis C.G., Sornette A., Sornette D. 1998. An observational test of the critical earthquake concept. J. of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B10): 24359–24372. https://doi.org/10.1029/98jb00792

4. Cianchini G., De Santis Ang., Giovambattista R.D., Abbattista C., Amoruso L., Campuzano S.A., Carbone M., Cesaroni C., De Santis Anna, Marchetti D. et al. 2020. Revised accelerated moment release under test: Fourteen worldwide real case studies in 2014–2018 and simulations. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 177: 4057–4087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-020-02461-9

5. Geller R.J., Jakson D.D., Kagan Y.Y., Mulargia F. 1997. Earthquakes cannot be predicted. Science, 275: 1616–1617. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1616

6. Hardebeck J.L., Felzer K.R., Michael A.J. 2008. Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant. J. of Geophysical Research, 113(B08310). doi:10.1029/2007JB005410

7. Jaume S., Sykes L. 1999. Evolving towards a critical point: A review of accelerating seismic moment/energy release prior to large and great earthquakes. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 155: 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000240050266

8. Kagan Y.Y., Jackson D.D., Geller R.J. 2012. Characteristic earthquake model, 1884–2011, R.I.P. Seismological Research Letters, 83(6): 951–953. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120107

9. Malyshev A.I. 1991. Dynamics of self-developing processes. Volcanology & Seismology, 4: 61–72. (In Russ.).

10.Malyshev A.I. 2020. Predictability of the seismic energy flux: Southern Europe and the Mediterranean. J. of Volcanology and Seismology, 14(1): 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0742046320010030

11. Malyshev A.I., Tikhonov I.N. 1991. [Regularities of the dynamics of the foreshock and aftershock sequences in the region of South Kuril Islands]. Doklady AN USSR = Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 319(1): 134–137. (In Russ.).

12. Malyshev A.I., Tikhonov I.N. 2007. Nonlinear regular features in the development of the seismic process in time. Izv. Physics of the Solid Earth, 43(6): 476–489.

13. Rodkin M.V. 2008. Seismicity in the generalized vicinity of large earthquakes. J. of Volcanology and Seismology, 2(6): 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1134/s0742046308060055

14. Rodkin M.V. 2012. Patterns of seismicity found in the generalized vicinity of a strong earthquake: Agreement with common scenarios of instability development. In: Extreme events and natural hazards: The complexity perspective: Geophysical Monograph Series, 196. doi:10.1029/2011GM001060

15. Rodkin M.V. 2020. Typical for- and aftershock anomaly - data, interpretation, application. J. of Volcanology and Seismology, 14(1): 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1134/s0742046320010066

16. Rodkin M.V., Tikhonov I.N. 2016. The typical seismic behavior in the vicinity of a large earthquake. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 95: 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.001

17. Romashkova L.L., Kosobokov V.G. 2001. [Seismicity dynamics prior to and after the largest earthquakes worldwide, 1985–2000]. Vychislitel’naya seysmologiya [Calculating seismology], 32: 162–189.

18. Sammis C., Bowman D., King G. 2004. Anomalous seismicity and accelerating moment release preceding the 2001 and 2002 earthquakes in Northern Baja California, Mexico. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 161: 2369–2378. doi:10.1007/S00024-004-2569-3

19. Sobolev G.A. 1993. [The basis for earthquake prediction ]. Moscow: Nauka, 314 p

20. Tikhonov I.N. 2008. [Earthquake prediction by the seismological data: methods, achievements, propects]. In: Prirodnye katastrofy: izuchenie, monitoring, prognoz: sb. materialov II (XX) Sakhalinskoy molodezhnoy nauch. shkoly, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 4–10 iyunya 2007 g. (ed. O.N. Likhacheva) [Natural hazards: study, monitoring, forecast: proceedings of the II (XX) Sakhalin youth scientific school, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, June 4–10, 2007 (ed. O.N. Likhacheva)]. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk: IMGiG DVO RAN, p. 7–24.

21. Tikhonov I.N. 2009. [Methodology of strong earthquakes forecasting by the seismicity flux on the example of northwestern part of the Pacific belt] : [extended abstract of dissertation … doctor of Phys. and Math. Sciences]. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 41 p.

22. [Tikhonov] 2019. Ivan Nikolaevich Tikhonov. Problems of seismology: Selected works. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk: IMGG FEB RAS, 209 p. Suppl.: 1 electronic opt. disk (DVD). doi:10.30730/978-5-6040621-4-2.2019-2

23. Tikhonov I.N., Rodkin M.V. 2012(2011). The current state of art in earthquake prediction, the typical precursors, and the experience in the earthquake forecasting at the Sakhalin Island and the surrounding areas. In: (Ed. Sebastiano D’Amico) Earthquake Research and Analysis – Statistical Studies, Observations and Planning. Book 5, p. 43–79. doi:10.5772/28689

24. Tikhonov I.N., Mikhaylov V.I., Malyshev A.I. 2017. Modeling the Southern Sakhalin earthquake sequences preceding strong shocks for short-term prediction of their origin time. Russian J. of Pacific Geology, 11(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1819714017010092

25. Vere-Jones D., Robinson R., Yang W. 2001. Remarks on the accelerated moment release model: problems of model formulation, simulation and estimation. Geophysical J. International, 144: 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2001.01348.x

26. Wang L., Shengli Ma, Li Ma. 2008. Accelerating moment release of acoustic emission during rock deformation in the laboratory. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 165(2): 181–199. doi:10.1007/s00024-008-0305-0

27. Wells D.L., Coppersmith K.J. 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull. of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4): 974–1002.

28. Zakupin A.S., Boginskaya N.V., Andreeva M.Yu. 2019. Methodological aspects of the study of seismic sequences by SDP (self-developing processes) on the example of the Nevel’sk earthquake on Sakhalin. Geosistemy perehodnykh zon = Geosystems of Transition Zones, 3(4): 377–389. (In Russ, abstr. in Engl.). https://doi.org/10.30730/2541-8912.2019.3.4.377-389