First things first: Science is not yet capable of predicting earthquakes. That doesn’t stop us from wishing we had some handle on when they might happen. Dr. Lucy Jones’ book The Big Ones: How Natural Disasters Have Shaped Us (and What We Can Do About Them) does a fabulous job explaining why we are so drawn to the idea of predicting these types of major events. For now, one way science helps us to answer the “When will it happen?” question is by providing probabilities during a particular timeframe. And those timeframes often impact our actions.
Let’s face it. When there is an 80% chance of snow, grocery stores turn into zoos! Humans are really good at preparing for emergencies when the risk is high. We see the same thing during wildfire, tornado, and hurricane seasons, but there aren’t seasons for earthquakes.
In some areas, earthquakes happen often enough that being prepared for one is common among residents. In locations like the Pacific Northwest, we experience few. The low frequency makes it much harder to take the risk seriously. The way we discuss the risk can also impact how motivated we are to prepare. Looking at the percentages below—all based on a 50-year outlook—it can feel like the level of risk depends on who you ask. Click the buttons to read the articles.
So, which percentage from above is correct? Well, it depends. Each percentage is correct because each percentage uses different criteria. Frustrating, right? Check out this Northwestern University paper for more information on why there are so many different probabilities out there. The answers are complex because earthquakes are complex. In this COGS Interview, Professor Goldfinger explains why we hear so many different probabilities. I highly recommend watching the entire interview, as it’s packed with information, but for a brief into, start the video at 1:02:00.
If you’re curious about how the CSZ earthquake probabilities are calculated, here is some additional information.
Explore the Probabilities
Choose the mean and standard deviations you are curious about from one of the rows below. Gaussian and Log-Normal results are listed in this image for 50-year outlooks, but you can use the mean and SD in STEP 2 to see how the probabilities change in different timeframes (What are the chances this earthquake hits by the time I retire? By the time my kids go to college? etc.) Details for the calculations are available at the bottom of this page. Feel free to reach out if you have questions or comments!
Edit the input fields in the Excel spreadsheet below, provided by Oregon State University Professor Chris Goldfinger and his colleagues. The probability numbers used in the “37% chance in 50 years” stat are based on all 46 major earthquakes.
If you would prefer to download this spreadsheet, Northwestern University Professor Seth Stein has it available. Simply click on the Download Excel spreadsheet for calculations link on Seth Stein’s website. *Note: the Download Excel spreadsheet of Cascadia earthquake history option on the webpage lists only the full-rip (M9) occurrences.
Edit the “Start Year” or “End Year” to see how the numbers change.
At the end of the day, history tells us we will, at some point, experience a CSZ quake. Rather than wondering which is the best probability timeframe to use, the best model, or whether to include M7s and M8s with the M9s, just be ready.
According to Professor Goldfinger, the log-normal model fits the data for our region better, but the Gaussian model (think bell curve) is better at predicting over time. HOWEVER, neither calculation accounts for the clustering behavior of the fault, so Professor Goldfinger cautions against getting too consumed by the numbers. We live in a region where these large earthquakes occur. While we don’t know exactly when the earthquake will happen, there is no doubt that the fault is going to rupture at some point. Being 2-Weeks-Ready is the right choice.
Details for the Calculations
Goldfinger, C., Galer, S., Beeson, J.W., Hamilton, T.S, Black, B., Romsos, C., Patton, J., Nelson, C.H., Hausmann, R., Morey,A., 2017, The Importance of Site Selection, Sediment Supply, and Hydrodynamics: A Case Study of Submarine Paleoseismology on the Northern Cascadia margin, Washington USA, Marine Geology, v. 384, p. 4-46.
Statistical Analyses of Great Earthquake Recurrence along the Cascadia Subduction Zone
Ram Kulkarni; Ivan Wong; Judith Zachariasen; Chris Goldfinger; Martin Lawrence Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2013) 103 (6): 3205–3221. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/articleabstract/103/6/3205/331820/Statistical-Analyses-of-Great-Earthquake