Cluster 7.0+ Magnitude Earthquakes Hit Vanuatu & Santa Cruz Islands

I have been following this for some days now. I dont know much about earthquakes and do not now what's normal. So is this just random activity that we should keep an eye on. Or is it something bigger and more uncommon? And what is a big earthquake compared to the scale, 7,8?

5.2 in Santa Cruz.. could it be building to another big one?

5.2 2009/10/08 03:40:56 -12.787 165.792 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS

There is a program that will show you all the worlds earthquakes on a world map as they happened since 1960.

You can even update it to today.

I have been educated and entertained by it for a few years now.


This link will take you to the developers web site where he can explain it better than I can.

Dr.Alan Jones program Seismic Eruptions

Is a MASSIVE 8.1 quake bigger than a regular 8.1 quake?

Originally posted by calcoastseeker


Is a MASSIVE 8.1 quake bigger than a regular 8.1 quake?

Ok, so I got a little excited when I saw the 8.1 mag the USGS first posted.

I imagine it's a rather massive quake to all those who go through such.

Here is a very interesting fact, from 1986 to 1996 there were 15 earthquakes listed by USGS of magnitude 7.0 or greater, which was slightly lower than the average of 18 for the same periods during the 20th Century.

But between 1997 and 2007 there were 99 earthquakes listed with magnitude 7.0 or greater.

In fact they have increased in every 38 year recoded cycle since 1863 (see table 1)

Table 1

DATES FROM-TO PERIOD NO. EARTHQUAKES (Mag. >6.99)

1863 to 1900 incl 38 yrs 12
1901 to 1938 incl 38 yrs 53
1939 to 1976 incl 38 yrs 71
1977 to 2014 incl 38 yrs 145

(to Oct 7. 2009) predict >183 in total.

*Although periods are shown up to 2014, this report was initially written in 2006. Therefore the final period (from 1977) will be updated as required until the end of 2014. In the meantime a predicted total is shown.

Tip of the hat to website Earthquakes - What are the long term trends?








[edit on 8-10-2009 by skepticantiseptic]

reply to post by skepticantiseptic

No.
Between 1986 and 1996 there were 137 7.0+ earthquakes recorded.

Between 1997 and 2007 there were 161 7.0+ earthquakes recorded.

Between 1975 and 1985 there were 157 7.0+ earthquakes recorded

Since 1973 there have been an average of 13.3 such earthquakes each year.

The highest number was 20, in 1995. The lowest was 6, in both 1986 and 1989.

Here is a chart which represents the the raw data found here (2009 is as of Sept.):
neic.usgs.gov...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fe3582985ecf.png[/atsimg]
There is no trend.



[edit on 10/8/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Good info Phage! Admittedly, I was getting caught up myself with the whole "something big is gonna happen" mentality. I will think twice now. Thanks mate!

Still... The Krakatoa Caldera is due

IRM lol!

reply to post by InfaRedMan

A lot of things are "due". But that just kind of shows how generally worthless trying to find trends in geophysical processes is. It doesn't necessarily mean that patterns don't exist, just that we aren't all that good at finding them. Much less their causes.

There's a lot of dice rolling going on. It doesn't matter how many times you've rolled, each time you do the odds are the same that you're going to get snake eyes.

UPDATE: a 7.1 quake has now just hit the area.

No tsunami warning issued at this time.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by asala]

Dual 7.0's just hit. I wonder what the record is for number of huge aftershocks that measure just about as much as the original.

And this raises another question, why are not aftershocks of this major magnitude not counted as separate events.

7.0 (Preliminary magnitude — update expected within 15 minutes)
Date-Time

* Thursday, October 08, 2009 at 08:28:51 UTC
* Thursday, October 08, 2009 at 07:28:51 PM at epicenter

Location 13.200°S, 166.200°E
Depth 33 km (20.5 miles) set by location program
Region VANUATU
Distances

* 278 km (173 miles) NNW (339°) from Santo (Luganville), Vanuatu
* 554 km (344 miles) NNW (336°) from PORT-VILA, Vanuatu
* 2099 km (1304 miles) NE (43°) from Brisbane, Australia

7.0
Date-Time

* Thursday, October 08, 2009 at 08:28:47 UTC
* Thursday, October 08, 2009 at 07:28:47 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 13.096°S, 166.144°E
Depth 35 km (21.7 miles) set by location program
Region VANUATU
Distances 265 km (165 miles) S of Lata, Santa Cruz Islands, Solomon Isl.
290 km (180 miles) NNW of Luganville, Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu
785 km (490 miles) ESE of HONIARA, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands
2100 km (1300 miles) NE of BRISBANE, Queensland, Australia

Wow, more in Vanuatu??...Those poor people are sure getting shaken around over there Hope everyone is safe. Ive never heard of so many large aftershocks happening after a quake before.

I was watching this on the USGS website not too long ago, I've been curious to follow California lately. I noticed the USGS is no longer showing the 7.0's and has no mention of the stronger ones now @

earthquakes.usgs.gov...

I have been reading the NOAA Tsunami reports also and found it funny that they lightly slipped in a Tsunami warning (atleast that's my opinion) for the Vanuatu region.

" HOWEVER - EARTHQUAKES OF THIS SIZE SOMETIMES GENERATE LOCAL
TSUNAMIS THAT CAN BE DESTRUCTIVE ALONG COASTS LOCATED WITHIN
A HUNDRED KILOMETERS OF THE EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER. AUTHORITIES
IN THE REGION OF THE EPICENTER SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS
POSSIBILITY AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
" - www.prh.noaa.gov...

reply to post by mryanbrown


those words are always in the statements, sort of a disclaimer.

This is the actual list for sequence of quakes

earthquake.usgs.gov...

MAG UTC DATE-TIME
y/m/d h:m:s LAT
deg LON
deg DEPTH
km Region
MAP 4.9 2009/10/08 11:35:04 -13.400 166.595 35.0 VANUATU
MAP 5.1 2009/10/08 10:47:30 -12.520 165.302 88.8 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 5.4 2009/10/08 10:11:06 -11.234 165.849 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 6.5 2009/10/08 08:34:37 -12.276 166.448 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 6.8 2009/10/08 08:28:48 -13.298 165.951 35.0 VANUATU
MAP 5.1 2009/10/08 06:44:50 -12.449 166.280 45.8 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 5.1 2009/10/08 06:07:13 -11.459 165.497 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 5.1 2009/10/08 04:38:51 -12.981 166.069 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 5.3 2009/10/08 04:17:54 -13.031 165.983 35.0 VANUATU
MAP 5.2 2009/10/08 03:40:56 -12.787 165.792 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 6.6 2009/10/08 02:12:39 -11.650 166.170 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 5.8 2009/10/08 01:59:20 -11.923 165.892 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 5.1 2009/10/08 01:31:00 -13.308 166.440 35.0 VANUATU
MAP 5.4 2009/10/08 01:08:36 -12.802 166.242 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 5.2 2009/10/08 00:22:05 -13.280 166.135 35.0 VANUATU
MAP 5.7 2009/10/07 23:48:52 -13.489 166.408 29.5 VANUATU
MAP 7.3 2009/10/07 23:13:49 -13.145 166.297 33.3 VANUATU
MAP 7.7 2009/10/07 22:18:26 -12.554 166.320 35.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
MAP 7.8 2009/10/07 22:03:15 -13.052 166.187 35.0 VANUATU
MAP 4.9 2009/10/07 05:08:56 -13.615 165.942 35.0 VANUATU
MAP 5.4 2009/10/01 20:55:44 -12.291 166.430 85.5 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS

For anybody who has been following my thread where I talk about, in addition to other important topics, rain in drought regions of the US causing these earthquakes, it was pouring down rain in Southern Texas as they were occurring, which has also been the case with the others that have been ravaging that part of the world over the last few weeks.

Link to thread I was referring to about drought and earthquakes

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have reports for heavy rain in the same regions for today but the Doppler map does not confirm it to be there, yet. Also watch for earthquakes when there is rain in drought stricken California

reply to post by amongus


xnibirux needs an medal for a good prediction!.......lets give him de ATS award...

reply to post by Phage


Mmm very true but wrong lol.

You are right indeed Phage that many people use numbers and figures and Stats to create patterns where they cant really be extrapolated from the data

(due to Chaos, lack of sufficient data range sets, and also natural variabilities in the manifestations of such events, as well as as you explain rightly the lots of dice rolling, or to put it differantly the very complex systems and dynamics and what feeds into them in these events)

HOWEVER it could also be stated from the information you show that infact there is a more than statistically significant (the important thing lol) increase in Events of Mag 7+ in numbers per year, the Mean from the chart is obviously and blatantly rising.

When events of Mag 7 + of over 10 a year a looked at in the data set, over the last 15 years there has only been 2 years without such a number or more.

Also one of the inputs to that is this year which has not ended, and as we have seen 3 or 4 over that Mag seems to have happened in just 24 hours (again very statistically significant and a deviation from the norm in locations of earthquake, it certainly seems to be Cluster and one of a lot of power and untold as yet outcome) so the chart should show this year on 11 now, meaning JUST ONCE in the last 15 years just one year has had events of below Mag 7 on a frequency of below 10.

If we look at the data avaialable (it is hard to source before 1973 USGS does not access this on the web for worldwide events, Library or intranet access is required, so I cant be bothered to do this now) for the previous 17 years back to 1973 there are 5 yeras with just 10 or below such events, so even without the three years previous to 1973 it is very plain to see this is indeed a pattern or a rising mean of frequency of events of Mag 7 or over.

If we then use the data you provided again to look at in a similair way the amount of events of Mag 7 or higher in a year based Over 15 events a year, again it is very significant and obvious... 8 such years in the last 20, and for the previous 17 years to that just 2.

Just to say, you are right in being cautious of most of the bunk out there using pseudo science and skeying of numbers to create patterns and theories where they dont exist, and to highlight the importance of the factors and complex nature, limited data sets, and understanding for many of the bogus fear mongering out there....

However knocking or debunking theories or information with theories or information that itself shows the opposite to what you say

There is no Pattern

is wrong, as clearly it is known and understood that statistical significance is a pattern, and with such small amounts each year say 7 events compared to 20 events per year, as in the data set we are looking at there is a huge, marked and not just significant but big yellow elephant in the living room imho. However if such an elephant has often sat in the living room in earths avaerage and normal history is unknown as you point out....

Just that when a Debunker/Skeptic/Scientist uses information and misenterprets it to argue against such use of data by those who are the "conspiracy Theorists", well the truth is being muddied beyond any clarity and just positions being argued by both sides.

To add I find 4 such events in a swarm in this area not the norm and certainly something to keep a very close eye on indeed, something is obviously happening there beyond what we normally experience in Earthquake monitoring, and in the big picture of the earths past it may be quite normal, but also be a trigger for a very large event indeed, so both sides should be cautious and admit we dont know.

Kind Regards,

Elf

Edit to add
reply to post by Hx3_1963


No it IS NOT a Caldera which is formed by a "Plume" of molten rock directly from the deep parts of the earths interior, and usually under soft rock, The area is though on a Plate Boundary, this is the cause of the earthquakes, the cause of the creation of the Islands themselves as along plate boundaries you do get Volcanoes (which in this case are not the same as caldera, there is no huge plate boundary under yellowstton for example just a large well huge volcanic Plume) which due to the plate boundary allows Magma to come close to the surface.

The Fiji islands were created by volcanism, like hawaii and indeed maybe a new island volcano will form here.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by MischeviousElf]

Ok so we all are clearly aware of the fact that the western portion of the pacific plate is very active.

However there's a catch. I took a look at San Andreas activity. Has anyone seen this? There have been literally 100's of tiny shakes in the last week and half. If these recent shakes have released some pressure then we should be OK.

Of course, this could just be a precursor for bigger things to come.

Just noticed on USGS that Hawaii just had a couple of shakes today... nothing major, but when looking at the charts over a somewhat extended period, it has been a while since the ground shook there instead of volcanic activity.

Hawaii 1
Hawaii 2

Patterns or not, it doesn't take "A Beautiful Mind" to put two and two together and see what is going on. There are enormous forces at work lately. I also recall quite a few predictions of a very active seismic first week of this month, possibly one from the Web Bot? Either way, there is too much 'major' activity spread out over too wide of an area to call each major quake isolated. I'd be interested to hear what Phage's take is on this.

I also got a laugh from the news this morning when they said that seismologists from Univ. of California are starting to admit that there is a connection between all of these quakes around the planet. I still feel like the plates moving in the Pacific are gearing up for a massive quake along the San Andreas and I just hope I'm wrong, but too many signs point to it. Tremendous amounts of energy are moving and shifting.

Oh, did anyone else notice the differences in depth for some of these quakes? There are a LOT that are less than 50km depth and then a few that are 500+km depth! What's up with that? Consider the amount of energy and force that it would take to move the planet at that depth. I think the quakes will calm down after the full moon this week, but that's just a hunch. I still think there might be one or two more big ones coming in the next couple of days so we'll have to wait and see.

My heart and prayers go out to any and all victims of these events.

reply to post by MischeviousElf

Playing with statistics is fun.

Using a linear regression on only the past decade, a downward trend is shown with R2=.04 (not a very impressive confidence level). Using the first decade of the dataset we get a downward trend with R2=.15. Of course we can have a lot of fun by being even more selective with the date ranges but by using the entire set (omitting the incomplete data for 2009) we see an upward trend with R2=.03. This does not show much of a correlation between time and earthquake frequency.

If you see a trend in the data since 1973, what do you see here? I see an average of 19 a year, with a wide range of variation. I see that the past couple of decades have actually been been relatively quiet. Does this mean we can expect more activity? Maybe, but the data sure doesn't show any increase at the moment.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f4d694099d1.png[/atsimg]
neic.usgs.gov...

[edit on 10/8/2009 by Phage]