It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


There is Nothing unusual about the Recent's why

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by Paroxysm

Thanks for that map

Its interesting to see the number of "big ones" in Japan, compared to the number in the Western USA.

I thought there may have been more along the that part of the least something similar to the number in the Japanese islands

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:45 AM
reply to post by OzWeatherman

It's interesting and in fact it would be better if there were more larger quakes along that Nth American west coastal region, because general scientific opinion is that a portion of the Juan de Fuca/Nth American plate boundary is "stuck" and the pressure there is building up. It would be preferable from the human point of view if the movement there was more-or-less constant. While the region around Japan is very active, it's probably advantageous in allowing movement to occur in somewhat smaller jolts rather than in a "big one".

Here's a short piece of text from the geological survey section of Natural Resources Canada that explains the technical aspects of the Juan de Fuca plate better than my own feeble attempts:

Instead of slipping continuously at the long-term average rate of 4 cm/yr, the two plates are currently stuck together along the upper portion of the subduction fault - this is referred to as the locked zone. Over time, tectonic stress builds up across the locked zone. Every 500 to 600 years, on average, the stress becomes too great, and the locked zone ruptures or becomes suddenly unstuck with 10 to 20 metres of fault slip, causing a magnitude eight or nine earthquake. An earthquake of this magnitude is referred to as a “great earthquake”.

The full text may be found here.

There are numerous other references on the Internet to the locked plate concept, and also some sites that tend to dispute it. However, the major geological organizations that really need to get this right tend to concur so I for one will take their word for it.

For the USA, the San Andreas fault is not really the "big one". True, the next time it lets go in a serious way a mid to high mag 7 is possible, but most studies I've read don't allow for much above a low mag 8. (That is still a very major quake though.) This is partly because of its nature as a strike-slip fault. To be more accurate, the San Andreas is actually a fault system rather than a single fault line, which makes it a difficult task to determine precisely where the next major quake might occur.

Subduction fault zones produce the most powerful quakes from the point of view of energy release, which is why the "locked" (or "stuck") zone of the Juan de Fuca/Nth American plate is potentially the biggest threat of all for those living in that region of the US and Canada.

When the Juan de Fuca finally lets go again it has the potential to produce a Mag 9 (which is about what it did last time) and due to the likely tsunami that would be generated the effects on nearby regions due to inundation are in some respects far greater than those of a major San Andreas quake. While there are good building codes in place in that part of the world, and many structures are able to withstand quite strong quakes without totally collapsing, they are not so well able to protect people in the event of sudden inundation by sea water that is several metres deep -- or more correctly, several metres high.

The coastal areas that would be affected run for perhaps hundreds of km along the US west coast and of course up into Canada. Such flooding would also be devastating for many areas as the salt contamination could kill much of the plant life.

We can only hope it doesn't happen during a Nth American winter season. Disasters in bad weather are always worse, simply from the point of view of survivors caught in extreme conditions.

There is also the possibility that when the Juan de lets go it could cause increased volcanic activity in the nearby regions, and even lead to other quakes elsewhere through a process known as "dynamic triggering". But at the very least it will be highly disruptive.


[edit on 20/10/09 by JustMike]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by JustMike

Thanks for that Mike, you taught me somethig I didnt know

Well deserved applause

I have heard of dynamic triggering, it actually occured with the 2004 quake. It was so large it actually set off tremors as far away as Alaska

Good stuff here though, I appreciate your contribution on this thread

[edit on 20/10/2009 by OzWeatherman]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by OzWeatherman

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate it.

In respect of dynamic triggering, there is evidence that large quakes in the Alaskan region can trigger tremors in Yellowstone and at The Geysers in Nth Cal:

November 4, 2002 -- A major, magnitude-7.9 earthquake that rocked Alaska on Sunday apparently triggered scores of earthquakes some 2,000 miles away at Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.

By 8:30 a.m. MST Monday Nov. 4 - about 17 hours after the Alaskan quake - more than 200 small earthquakes had been detected occurring in clusters throughout the Yellowstone area. The quakes were recorded by the Yellowstone seismic network operated by the University of Utah Seismograph Stations...

...There also are preliminary reports the Alaska quake may have triggered smaller tremors at The Geysers geothermal area in northern California...

...The apparent triggering of the Yellowstone tremors by the Alaska quake "confirms what we are beginning to see worldwide - that earthquakes can be triggered by other earthquakes at great distances, more so than we had thought before," said Robert. B. Smith, a University of Utah professor of geology and geophysics and coordinating scientist for the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory...

The link for the complete text is here.

My own humble opinion is that even smaller quakes (say mag 5-plus) might also dynamically trigger others in distant locations, depending on the tectonic of the distant region. I have noted that quakes on the northern mid-Atlantic ridge are sometimes followed by quakes in the Kamchatka region, at about the same latitude but 180 degrees away. I have also noted similar occurrences for quakes in the Afghan highland region and subsequent events in California and into the Nevada border area. Central California is at about the same latitude as the Afghan highlands and almost exactly 180 deg away. However that's just my own observations and there would need to be more detailed empirical studies done to lend this "180 degree" concept much credence.

Just for interest, here are the links for a few posts from Dec 2008, where I made a prediction for a quake in a specific region of a specified minimum magnitude and within a time window of three days, based upon the concept outlined above. The quake occurred three days after I made the prediction, within the area I'd specified and at the right magnitude. I then explained the methodology by using maps from USGS with some added details.

Post from 18/12/2008 with preliminary notification.

Post from 19/12/08 (about 12 hours later) with details of the prediction, including co-ordinates, magnitude, time window, and the target area marked on a map.

Post from 22/12/08 with data sheet and map from USGS confirming a quake within the target area, and within the specified magnitude and time window.

Post from a little later on 22/12/08 which explains my methodology and plots the relevant quakes on a USGS map.

Of course, one swallow does not a summer make, but if members think this concept might have some merit then I'd be glad if you do your own observations and research. I'd be especially interest if others could confirm the relationship I have observed between the Afghan region and California/Nevada.

Anyway enough of pushing my own barrow. The point I'm making is that we need to explore all sorts of methodologies and try various ideas in an attempt to (perhaps) make some forms of quake prediction reasonably reliable. Also, my apologies to Ozweatherman if my post has gone a little off track.

I think it's important to emphasize the long-term aspects of studying quakes; short-term "peaks" in activity are very poor indicators of what might be going on. I felt the series of larger quakes in the Pacific Islands recently was a bit out of the ordinary but nothing startling. I've seen this sort of thing before.

Regarding the Juan de Fault subduction zone, an interesting and easy-to-follow presentation is available with excellent graphics and also some details passed on by native Americans from that area, whose oral histories tell of the last great quake. It's well worth reading and can be accessed here.

Best regards,


Edited to fix glitchy link.

[edit on 20/10/09 by JustMike]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:38 PM

Originally posted by pyrytyes

Would it be safe to say that should a CME occur, a seismic event will follow within 36 hours? I believe there was a CME in the time frame of the recent American Samoa event, and those that followed shortly thereafter. Is there data available to support the premise stated in the link?

It is more likely that an earthquake will occur after a CME, but these events do not occur only at times of high solar activity, during times of low solar activity, and during times such as we have been for the past 3 years in which the Sun's activity on overall has reduced to a crawl, the Solar System defenses are down, and so are the defenses of every planet in the Solar System, including Earth.

Since Earth's own magnetic field is now weaker than it has been for thousands of years, the Earth is even more susceptible to events from outside the Solar System, such as gamma ray bursts, and other explosions, and events from outside the Solar System which do affect the dynamics of our planet.

As for if is there is more data avaialbe? All of these links i gave are abstracts to research being done, and which for the most part are for scholarly use. There are some links which have more information but for the most part to read an entire research you have to be part of a community, or be a subscriber. Nonetheless those links I gave are reliable, and they do summarize and explain what has been found.

Some of the links I have given are also a summary of meetings done by scientists who discuss such topics, and they explain what previous research has found, and what they will be discussing, which again it is reliable.

Originally posted by pyrytyes
November, 2003
“Both coronal holes and CMEs are monitored by satellite-borne and ground-based instruments, which makes it possible to predict periods of enhanced seismic risk. The geoeffectiveness of solar wind from a coronal hole only depends on the position of the hole relative to the Earth, and for the CMEs an additional factor is their speed. It has been recently found that a useful tool in identifying the population of geoeffective CMEs is the detection of long-wavelength (decameter-hectometer) type II solar radio bursts, as the CMEs associated with them are much faster and wider than average.”

I gather these are earth based monitors.

Please do learn how to quote these articles, otherwise it makes it confusing.

Use ex in between [] when you are excerpting an article from outside ATS and give the link to that article you are excerpting, and also if you are excerpting an article by another poster. Those articles I gave are from outside ATS, and then put in between quotes the posts of members you are addressing.

Anyway, the article itself states.

Both coronal holes and CMEs are monitored by satellite-borne and ground-based instruments

Originally posted by pyrytyes
The magnetic field of the Earth is being measured constantly, and these measurements are manipulated to obtain the various K values.

There is no manipulation of the data. Do you know what manipulation means? The following is what manipulation means.

exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage;


There might be some cases in which some scientists do manipulate data, but of course you have to show proof this is happening instead of just claiming it happens.

BTW, the same conclusions are found by different universities, and program groups studying this topic, so there is less risk of manipulation.

A couple of examples of scientists who manipulate the data are Hansen, and Mann.

Hansen has been found to post Russian data which was in error, and other data without verifying it, just because such error data corroborated his views, when there is always supposed to be a verification of such data. And Mann, who made the Hockey Stick graph, tried to bury the Medieval Warm Period, and part of the Roman warm period with his Hockey Stick Graph, and subsequent research he has published.

It is a known fact that the Medieval, and the Roman Warm period were global in nature, and were warmer than it was in the warmest summers we have had during present times

Originally posted by pyrytyes
The “cosis” link mentions the SOHO satellite in reference to Kp increases, but does not indicate values, nor specify origin. Any additional information would be appreciated.

If you can post the excerpt, and link to which "cosis link" you are talking about makes it much easier to respond. As for additional information, if you want to find out more about those links I provided, you have to become a member, and in many cases pay a fee to get data. I can't just give you that data because it is a copyright infringement.

Originally posted by pyrytyes
I can readily agree that fluctuations in the magnetic field may be utilized as precursors of quakes. I do not understand the link to “cause”. The mechanism for producing the magnetic field, as it is understood, is the fluid motion within the molted core, described as a dynamo process.

The Earth is ruled by magnetic, and gravitational processes/energies from the core of the planet. Large fluctuations, either up, or down of charged particles which enter the Earth's atmosphere will affect the processes of the Earth's core, and in turn cause earthquakes, and magmatic events.

You do know that the molten core is made up of iron right? What happens to iron when it is subject to large magnetic influences? The Earth's interior is for all intense and purposes an electrical conductor.

We use currents that flow through the Earth's surface, underground, as well as through the oceans to conduct measurements for research, and experiments. These currents are known as "Telluric currents" which have been observed to occur in the Earth's crust, and mantle.

I have done measurements using this current to get information about the Earth's layers, or just to transmit data from underground exploration equipment to surface receivers which are interpreted by computer programs.

These currents are known to change when there are changes in the magnetic field of the Earth, and in turn such changes affect the Earth's interior processes.

The geodynamo currents that occur deep within the core of the Earth are also considered as telluric currents, and these are the currents which we think are responsible for the generation of the permanent geomagnetic field.

Originally posted by pyrytyes
I submit that the anomalous K values might be produced by the intense heat caused by the pressures involved when the massive “plates” move against each other, more so than a “galactic” increase in magnetic energy.

That is a wrong assumption on your part, they know whether such events are produced by the Earth's core, or come from outside sources. Now you seem to be the one trying to manipulate the data.

Originally posted by pyrytyes
Though I do not rule out the possibility of a contribution by outside forces, it is doubtful, to me, that such force could be attributed to the “cause”.

Why is it doubful to you? You don't provide any evidence, instead you made wrong assumptions, and claim because of those wrong assumptions that the data is wrong. Now you are the one trying to manipulate the data.

Originally posted by pyrytyes
I am not privy to any data that show a marked increase to that which would support a “galactic” cause of earthquakes, as the linked information ( just the free stuff), did not provide such data. I readily admit that discussion of “electron flux” is way over my head, and is apt to stay there. I have done a cursory search, and readings, however, not enough time on my part, and too little “surface” information is available in layman terms to spark my continued interest. If you can provide links, or information of an explanatory nature, in layman terms, it would be appreciated.

As I stated above the "free stuff" does provide a summary of what was found, and since you already mentioned that such information is way over your head, I wonder of what use it would be to you.

Apart from showing the summaries of such research data, which for some reason you don't want to believe, I also gave more or less a summary of what this means.

Originally posted by pyrytyes
A question I have is “Since the papers have been published, has this information been used to successfully predict a seismic event of any magnitude?” If so, why have the MSM not forewarned of such an event?

It takes time to gather such data, and by the time such data is published the event has already occurred. We would need more sophisticated equipment, and a faster way to

That's one reason why something like you mentioned is not viable, not to mention that the MSM is more interested in showing what is happening in Hollywood, and the next story about "sex, money, or scandal."

Science for the most part is of no interest to the MSM since most people are not really interested in science, and for the most part people would not comprehend what is being said, or the implications of such information.

[edited for errors]

[edit on 20-10-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:24 AM
BTW, even when using Earth based monitors we know whether cosmic rays, or other charged particles are Earth based, or come from a source from the Solar System like the Sun, or even whether they come from outside the Solar System.

Although we cannot pinpoint the exact origin of many of such events because for example cosmic rays are influenced by many magnetic fields from outside the Solar System, and such influence cause cosmic rays to swerve along complicated paths hence their point of origin cannot be determined.

But we do know whether such charged particles came from the internal processes of the Earth, whether they came from the Sun or some other source including from outside the Solar System.

It's like every charged particle has it's own signature, but many of such signatures are so complicated because they are influenced by many other forces that we do not know from where outside the Solar System they came from. In other cases, we can know more or less where such events originated. But on the overall we know for certain if they came from Earth, or from some other source.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

new topics

top topics
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in