Dr. Osama Gazal

The devastating earthquakes that struck Turkey in early 2023 and Venezuela at the onset of the most recent summer—the latter claiming over 4,000 lives, injuring more than 17,000 individuals, and inflicting widespread destruction upon critical infrastructure—have once again thrust seismogenic processes into the global spotlight. In the ensuing months, a surge of both peer-reviewed and popular-science literature has emerged, seeking not only to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of such catastrophic events but also to engage a public increasingly attuned to the immediacy of natural hazards. Within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, this renewed scientific and public discourse has converged upon the Asian–African Rift System, with particular emphasis on the Dead Sea Transform Fault—a structure long recognized as a primary locus of tectonic strain between the African and Arabian plates. This major lithospheric discontinuity, referred to interchangeably as the Great African Rift, the Great African Fracture, or the African Fault, extends for more than 6,000 kilometers, exhibiting a variable width of 7 to 20 kilometers. Its topographic expression is equally striking: the rift attains its maximum elevation near Baalbek, Lebanon, at approximately 1,170 meters above sea level, while plunging to more than 400 meters below sea level at the Dead Sea—the lowest continental elevation on Earth.

Although the Asian–African Rift System (in Jordan somehow people call it Dead Sea Transform) constitutes the principal plate boundary accommodating frictional movement between the African and Arabian tectonic plates, the accurate forecasting of major seismic events—in terms of precise timing, epicentral localization, or anticipated magnitude of infrastructural damage—remains fundamentally beyond current human capability. While the occurrence of a significant earthquake along this active fault system is scientifically plausible and indeed consistent with the established tenets of plate tectonic theory, the inherent stochasticity of rupture processes precludes deterministic prediction at present. Moreover, the region remains susceptible to the potential activation of secondary fault structures, the emergence of new fractures, and intensified ground motion arising from complex intraplate strain interactions. Against this geological backdrop, the question of when—and with what destructive force—this boundary may next rupture persists as one of the most pressing and intellectually formidable challenges confronting contemporary Earth sciences.
Before delving further into the nature of earthquakes as a natural phenomenon—which, in my view, lies almost entirely beyond the realm of human prediction—it is imperative to revisit the seismic catastrophe that struck Türkiye. We shall then examine prevailing theories that seek to explain these tectonic events and simulate the causal mechanisms underlying such colossal ground motions. Historically, it has been observed that these disasters have frequently coincided with periods of diminished solar activity—commonly referred to as 'quiet' solar cycles—which have been associated with either minor glacial episodes (Little Ice Ages) or major glaciation phases (Fang et al. (2025), and Choi et al. (2012)). Recent studies have identified statistically significant correlations between solar activity and seismic frequency, with seismicity lagging sunspot peaks by approximately 4 years (Fang et al. (2025). Other researchers have proposed that solar heat may influence rock properties and subsurface water movement, thereby modulating seismic activity (Saldanha et al. (2025). However, it must be noted that the United States Geological Survey maintains that a causal relationship has never been conclusively demonstrated, as earthquakes are primarily driven by internal tectonic processes independent of solar variability.

I have previously addressed the catastrophic earthquake that devastated Türkiye, which stands as the most destructive seismic event in decades. On February 6, 2023, two colossal earthquakes—registering magnitudes of 7.8 and 7.5—struck southern Turkey and western Syria, exacting a devastating toll of at least 52,000 fatalities, approximately 120,000 injuries, and the displacement of millions. Satellite imagery from NASA's Earth Observatory reveals that 'the scale of destruction in Turkey and Syria is comparable to that wrought by the great 1906 earthquake that devastated San Francisco.' Furthermore, the lateral displacement induced by the seismic event resulted in a divergence of approximately 3 meters across the Anatolian Plate, effectively translating Turkey's landmass closer to Europe, according to NASA.

In the wake of this calamity, the global scientific community mobilized with renewed urgency to address the most fundamental unresolved question surrounding seismic activity: Can earthquakes be reliably anticipated through geological studies employing statistical methodologies or machine learning algorithms, or does this challenge remain perpetually intractable? Consequently, the prevailing pessimism regarding the inherent unpredictability of earthquakes has cast a long shadow over the entire endeavor of seismic forecasting. The self-organized criticality (SOC) theory, coupled with the apparent inability to identify robust precursors preceding major seismic events, has cemented a widely accepted scientific paradigm positing that earthquakes are, to a significant degree, chaotic phenomena. For decades, efforts to forecast earthquakes have been pursued predominantly through statistical approaches rooted in the principles of statistical geophysics. While this remains a promising avenue, the theory of Chaotic Synchronization—applied to seismology over the past three decades—has introduced a glimmer of hope, suggesting that earthquakes may eventually be predictable within a finite temporal window. (Chaotic Synchronization: Chaotic Synchronization theory posits that seemingly random seismic events may exhibit hidden patterns of coherence when analyzed across multiple temporal and spatial scales, potentially allowing for probabilistic forecasting within constrained time windows)

Decades of extensive scientific research in structural geology and tectonics, alongside more recent investigations into seismic chaos synchronization and earthquake predictability, have yet to yield functional early warning systems. Nevertheless, several salient characteristics of recurring earthquake sequences can inform risk mitigation strategies through meticulous planning and preparedness measures—both prior to and during seismic events.

At present, one of the most pressing challenges confronting the field is the formulation of a coherent, unifying theory of earthquakes—one capable of synthesizing the wealth of empirical observations and theoretical constructs amassed by seismologists over the past century. Topological and time-series analyses conducted by seismologists have revealed that earthquakes worldwide exhibit signatures of synchronization. Despite the rapidly expanding body of knowledge concerning seismic behavior and fault dynamics, earthquake prediction remains one of the most formidable unsolved problems in geophysics. To date, two distinct behavioral regimes of so-called 'seismic oscillators' have been identified: periodic and geometric."

The concepts of periodic earthquakes, periodic oscillations, and their synchronization—or at least quasi-periodic seismic behavior—are well established in seismology through the framework of the characteristic earthquake model. This model posits that Repeating Earthquake Sequences (RES), also referred to as repeaters or multiples, arise from the repeated rupture of the same, or nearly the same, fault patch. These sequences offer a valuable natural laboratory for understanding the earthquake cycle and fault interactions, given their fixed source geometry and quasi-periodic recurrence patterns.

Numerous studies have been undertaken to analyze the recurrence intervals of earthquakes within RES. These events typically share several defining attributes: they occur at the same location, rupture identical fault lengths, exhibit consistent faulting mechanisms and seismic moments, nucleate at the same hypocenter, propagate in the same direction, and rupture identical fault patches.

However, the reliability of the characteristic earthquake model has been a subject of ongoing debate since its inception. According to a comprehensive review by Dr. Jure Žalohar (2018), the most salient characteristics of repeating earthquake sequences include:

•(a) Recurrence times and/or event frequencies within certain RES exhibit temporal variations consistent with Omori's law;
•(b) Some RES demonstrate a chain-like migration of seismic activity;
•(c) Recurrence intervals are inversely proportional to the fault's average slip rate;
•(d) Rong et al. (2003) reported that forecasts of large earthquakes around the Pacific Rim since 1990 have performed worse than random Poisson forecasts, and the characteristic model failed to survive rigorous statistical testing;
•(e) The number of events within recurrent earthquake series typically ranges from three to seven (Chen et al., 2007, 2009), with occasional instances extending up to nine.

Geometric Earthquakes: An alternative behavioral regime of 'seismic oscillators' was documented by Kobayashi et al. (2003), who observed an unusual earthquake sequence during the 2000 Miyakejima volcanic activity in Japan. On July 11–12, 2000, a distinctive series of seismic events exhibiting anomalous characteristics was detected. The findings of Kobayashi et al. (2003) are consistent with the characteristics of Repeating Earthquake Sequences (RES).

Subsequent investigations have revealed that RES exhibit either periodic behavior or temporal variations in recurrence intervals consistent with Omori's law—manifesting as either increasing or decreasing trends (e.g., Schaff et al., 1998; Kobayashi et al., 2003; Peng et al., 2005; Nomura et al., 2014). It is noteworthy, however, that only Kobayashi et al. (2003) explicitly linked Omori's law to a geometric progression, wherein recurrence times scale linearly with time.

The most salient characteristics of geometric earthquakes, as identified in the literature, include:
•(a) The recurrence intervals within the sequence decreased at a consistent rate;
•(b) This linear reduction in recurrence time conforms to a geometric progression;
•(c) [Note: This point appears to be a duplicate of (b) and has been omitted to avoid redundancy];
•(d) The focal mechanisms of earthquakes within the sequence remained similar;
•(e) The frequency of events within the recorded sequences conformed to Omori's law, consistent with patterns observed in foreshock sequences or acoustic emission

Theoretical frameworks continue to evolve in an effort to synthesize the vast array of available geophysical data, with the ultimate aim of simulating earthquake occurrence and forecasting either the timing of future events or the probability of recurrence. Among the most recent contributions to seismology and structural geology is the Omega-Theory, which posits that the numerous well-defined physical characteristics observed in repeating and geometric earthquake sequences cannot be dismissed as mere coincidences, but rather point to the existence of a fundamental underlying physics governing seismic phenomena. The nomenclature derives from the fact that rotations and cellular structures within the Cosserat medium are conventionally denoted by the Greek letter Ω (omega). However, the scope of the Ω-Theory extends considerably beyond Cosserat theory, encompassing a diverse range of topics in theoretical physics, geophysics, and geology—including plate tectonics, synchronization of chaotic systems, solitons, fractals, mathematical set theory, and quantum mechanics. As research progresses, statistical methodologies, scientific approaches, and the application of artificial intelligence will demand increasing attention to deepen our understanding of earthquakes, mitigate their impacts, and potentially constrain the timing of their occurrence to facilitate adequate preparedness.

It is worth noting that, although the core of my research interest lies in hydrogeological and environmental applied engineering, a comprehensive historical analysis of global natural disasters reveals that earthquakes account for approximately 10.13% of all recorded events, ranking them third among the most common natural disasters—following floods and storms. Notably, water-related disasters collectively constitute approximately 89% of all natural disasters and exact a far greater toll on human life and property than earthquake-induced damages. When assessed in terms of global mortality, earthquakes account for approximately 10.3% of natural disaster-related fatalities, positioning them third on the list of lethal natural disasters, again following floods. Drought disasters, meanwhile, have historically ranked as the world's most devastating disaster in terms of human impact over extended timescales. Nevertheless, earthquakes remain one of the world's most significant natural hazards. Although major events of the magnitude observed in Türkiye are relatively rare on a global scale, earthquakes capable of generating severe ground shaking in the vicinity of the epicenter are a commonly anticipated occurrence in regions characterized by active fault systems and extensive slip faults situated along tectonic plate boundaries.

In conclusion, while earthquakes are undeniably among the most destructive natural phenomena—capable of reshaping landscapes and claiming countless lives—they also serve as a profound testament to the dynamic vitality of our planet. Far from being inert, Earth remains a living, evolving system, its interior teeming with latent energies that manifest through tectonic activity. Just as the human body pulses with life-sustaining rhythms until the moment of death, so too does our planet express its ongoing vitality through seismic activity. Earthquakes, in this sense, are not anomalies but rather essential expressions of a planet that remains geologically alive—a reminder that the same forces which pose such grave risks are also the very forces that have shaped our continents, built our mountains, and sustained the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere over geological timescales.

As we have seen throughout this discussion, the scientific quest to understand and predict these phenomena continues to evolve—from the characteristic earthquake model and Repeating Earthquake Sequences (RES) to the emerging Omega-Theory and the application of chaos synchronization and artificial intelligence. While we have yet to achieve reliable short-term prediction, our growing understanding of seismic patterns, recurrence intervals, and fault mechanics offers hope that we may one day mitigate the impacts of these inevitable events through better preparedness, resilient infrastructure, and informed risk management.

Ultimately, earthquakes are neither curses nor cosmic punishments—they are natural expressions of a planet in perpetual motion. Our challenge, as scientists and as a global community, is not to prevent them—for that lies beyond our power—but to learn to live with them, to anticipate their rhythms, and to build a world resilient enough to withstand their fury. In doing so, we honor both the dynamic Earth that sustains us and the countless lives that have been lost to its mighty tremors. Until that day when prediction becomes reality, we must continue to research, prepare, and persevere—for as long as the Earth lives, earthquakes will occur, and as long as we live, we must strive to understand them.

By Dr Osama MN. Gazal, Environmental and Climate Change Advisor/ PhD in Hydrogeological and Environmental Applied Engineering