Quake Watch 2010, page 175

reply to post by BO XIAN

---

I didn't see that but I have seen similar before, as recently as the New Britian quakes earlier in the month.
On EMSC I seen 2 x 7's and a 6.2 when at the end of the day it was just a 6.9 and a 7.2.
I took a screenshot and posted it here
What I think is happening is just a fluke of being on the site just as they are adjusting the details, so you get the old data still written there while the new data is coming on.
What you seen must have been the 3 x7's old and new and maybe another one that was later downgraded to a 6 .
This is when taking a screenshot helps prove that you are not crazy and seeing things

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by PuterMan

---

I counted 9 quakes listed 7.0 and above. I think at least 5-7 of those quakes were listed next to each other.

DID ANYONE ELSE SEE SUCH A THING ON ANY SITE?

WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED???

Hi, First off there were 3 x 7+ quakes in the Moro Gulf area and several others in the 5+ range all of which were very deep and concentrated in one area. I have to say that I don't recall there being multiple entries but that would depend upon the site that you were looking at and how they dealt with changes to details as they come in. There are some sites where it can be confusing as the other detail often remains on the listing for a while. A very minor example of that is eQuake in Firefox. Usually these get corrected when they are looked at by a human.

You must remember that the bulk of these systems are computer controlled and don't see human input immediately something occurs thus 'errors' can persist for a little while. Fortunately at present we are still better than computers at deciding if something is correct or not.

This is the list 7+ quakes for the past 365 days and you can see from this USGS page that the number of 7+ quakes in the year at 21 is perhaps slightly above the average, as are the 8+ at 2 number.

The smaller 6+ quakes are however lower so it all balances out. What I am saying is that it is not a significant difference.

So to précis, Yes you can get incorrect values depending on the site and they do eventually sort themselves out which would explain the disappearance of the one you saw.

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
23/07/2010 23:15:09,6.7917,123.2818,7.40,631.20,Moro Gulf
23/07/2010 22:51:12,6.4695,123.5322,7.60,583.80,Moro Gulf
23/07/2010 22:08:11,6.6985,123.4745,7.30,612.20,Moro Gulf
18/07/2010 13:34:59,-5.9394,150.5718,7.30,35.00,New Britain region. Papua New Guinea
16/06/2010 03:16:27,-2.1708,136.5492,7.00,18.00,near the north coast of Papua. Indonesia
12/06/2010 19:26:46,7.8346,91.8943,7.50,12.90,Nicobar Islands. India region
27/05/2010 17:14:48,-13.7098,166.5066,7.20,36.10,Vanuatu
09/05/2010 05:59:42,3.7470,96.0128,7.20,45.00,northern Sumatra. Indonesia
06/04/2010 22:15:02,2.3602,97.1315,7.70,31.00,northern Sumatra. Indonesia
04/04/2010 22:40:42,32.2587,-115.2872,7.20,10.00,Baja California. Mexico
27/02/2010 06:34:14,-35.9089,-72.7327,8.80,35.00,offshore Maule. Chile
26/02/2010 20:31:27,25.9025,128.4172,7.00,22.00,Ryukyu Islands. Japan
12/01/2010 21:53:10,18.4573,-72.5332,7.00,13.00,Haiti region
03/01/2010 22:36:28,-8.7998,157.3698,7.20,25.00,Solomon Islands
09/11/2009 10:44:54,-17.2119,178.4127,7.20,585.10,Fiji
07/10/2009 23:13:49,-13.1451,166.2972,7.30,33.30,Vanuatu
07/10/2009 22:18:26,-12.5540,166.3200,7.80,35.00,Santa Cruz Islands
07/10/2009 22:03:15,-13.0524,166.1869,7.60,35.00,Vanuatu
30/09/2009 10:16:09,-0.7254,99.8560,7.60,81.00,southern Sumatra. Indonesia
29/09/2009 17:48:10,-15.5095,-172.0341,8.00,18.00,Samoa Islands region
02/09/2009 07:55:01,-7.8088,107.2592,7.00,46.20,Java. Indonesia
10/08/2009 19:55:39,14.0129,92.9226,7.60,33.10,Andaman Islands. India region
09/08/2009 10:55:55,33.1221,138.0263,7.10,297.00,Izu Islands. Japan region

Hope that helps. Please feel free to ask if there is any further clarification you would like and I am sure someone will answer.

Hey whats all the fuss about this 5.2 off Oregon?

there were only 28 felt reports on USGS and a couple of those look suspect, Westminster and Denver, Colorado 1770km away !, thats like me feeling a M5.2 located way up in the Kermadecs , it just ain't gonna happen, a M7.6 maybe yes.

Like they say at Tui, Yeah Right

[edit on 29-7-2010 by muzzy]

reply to post by muzzy

---

You have been studying 7+ quakes Muzzy. Do you get the same result as me for the past 365 days?

Just wondering?

reply to post by muzzy

---

OMG a bit close to home blah blah

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
28/07/2010 16:12:05,43.7568,-125.7982,5.20,10.00,off the coast of Oregon
13/05/2010 05:35:11,42.1819,-126.4749,5.10,9.70,off the coast of Oregon
07/05/2010 17:46:14,44.3687,-129.4411,5.10,10.00,off the coast of Oregon
04/02/2010 20:20:21,40.4123,-124.9613,5.90,23.60,offshore Northern California
10/01/2010 00:27:39,40.6520,-124.6925,6.50,29.30,offshore Northern California
04/11/2009 12:38:29,43.4603,-126.7738,5.30,10.00,off the coast of Oregon
29/08/2009 10:11:15,43.8876,-128.5820,5.10,10.00,off the coast of Oregon

There was CONSIDERABLY more action in January but ATS memories are short.

Originally posted by whoshotJR
If I recall correctly this is on the other side of the plate then the ones you have listed for Oregon and of course are more north then the North CA ones.

All of those are inside the JDF plate as far as I can see. The odd one out if anything is the 6

Google Earth KMZ of those quakes so you can see the relative positions.

[edit on 29/7/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by PuterMan

---

So really it doesn't answer the question lol as it depends on how they want to record the depth, although it makes better sense to base it off mean sea level so all quakes share equal surface to go off

reply to post by Discotech

---

Yes, I think I am going to consider that it is based on mean sea level and run with that.

Let's face it at the end of the day for the majority of places we are talking a difference of between 3 and 5 km so not huge.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

---

You have been studying 7+ quakes Muzzy. Do you get the same result as me for the past 365 days?

Just wondering?

You caught me on the hop there, I’m still coming back up from 1930 to 2010 adding the stuff from iisee catalogue and also revising the way I stored the data, only up to 2006 right now. But anyway at this stage I have 28 during the last 365 days.
Already I see one (at Izu Islands) that I didn’t have.

DATE UTC, LAT, LONG, MAG, LOCATION
23/07/2010, 6.7917,123.2818,7.4,Moro Gulf
23/07/2010, 6.4695,123.5322,7.6,Moro Gulf
23/07/2010, 6.6985,123.4745,7.3,Moro Gulf
18/07/2010, -6, 150.436, 7.1, New Britain, PNG
18/07/2010, -6.019, 150.497, 7.3, New Britain, PNG
16/06/2010, -2.171, 136.549, 7.1, Papua, Indonesia
12/06/2010, 7.702, 91.975, 7.7, Nicobar islands, Indian Ocean
27/05/2010, -13.7, 166.68, 7.4, Vanuatu Islands
9/05/2010, 3.67, 96.1, 7.2, o/s Northern Sumatra, Indonesia
13/04/2010, 33.271, 96.627, 7.1, Yushu, China
11/04/2010, -10.85, 161.15, 7.1, Solomon Islands
6/04/2010, 2.36, 97.132, 7.7, o/s Sumatra, Indonesia
4/04/2010, 32.128, -115.303, 7.2, Baja California, Mexico
11/03/2010, 34.92, -71.95, 7, Liberator Bernardo O'Higgins, Chile
11/03/2010, -34.25, -71.9, 7.2, Liberator Bernardo O'Higgins, Chile
27/02/2010, -35.846, -72.719, 8.8, o/s Maule, Chile
26/02/2010, 25.931, 128.427, 7, Rhyuku Islands, Japan
12/01/2010, 18.443, -72.571, 7.3, Port-au-Prince, Haiti
3/01/2010, -8.799, 157.346, 7.1, Solomon Islands
2009/10/24, -6.2, 130.38, 7, Solomon Islands
2009/10/07, -13.13, 166.62, 7.6, Santa Cruz Islands
2009/10/07, -12.73, 166.13, 7.7, Vanuatu Islands
2009/10/07, -13.09, 166.42, 7.3, Banda Sea
2009/09/30, -.78, 99.87, 7.7, Vanuatu Islands
2009/09/29, -15.5, -172.03, 8.2, Southern Sumatra, Indonesia
2009/09/02, -8, 107.34, 7.4, Samoa Islands Region
2009/08/10, 14, 92.98, 7.6, Java, Indonesia
2009/08/09, 33.17, 137.94, 7.1, Andaman Islands, India Region

Like you said in the other post, it depends which catalogue or web site you look at.
Rather than just stick to the search list results I have also checked out this page and found at least 2-3 per year more than PDE or NoAA had.
My lists are probably going to show higher numbers compared to most, as I put anything on that shows a number 7, ie it can be Mw, Ms, Mb, ML, or Me.
The reason for doing so is further back in time ( pre 1970) they used Ms and Me a lot more and there often isn’t any data showing Mw.


[edit on 29-7-2010 by muzzy]

reply to post by muzzy

---

Hm, I seem to be having some difficulty reconciling the differences. This shows what remains of our two lists, i.e. where they do not match (close enough)

My Data

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
09/11/2009 10:44:54,-17.2119,178.4127,7.20,585.10,Fiji
09/08/2009 10:55:55,33.1221,138.0263,7.10,297.00,Izu Islands. Japan region

Your Data

DATE UTC, LAT, LONG, MAG, LOCATION
18/07/2010, -6, 150.436, 7.1, New Britain, PNG
13/04/2010, 33.271, 96.627, 7.1, Yushu, China
11/04/2010, -10.85, 161.15, 7.1, Solomon Islands
11/03/2010, 34.92, -71.95, 7, Liberator Bernardo O'Higgins, Chile
11/03/2010, -34.25, -71.9, 7.2, Liberator Bernardo O'Higgins, Chile
24/10/2009, -6.2, 130.38, 7, Solomon Islands
2009/09/29, -15.5, -172.03, 8.2, Southern Sumatra, Indonesia
2009/08/10, 14, 92.98, 7.6, Java, Indonesia

I just checked on ANSS using these parameters

Your search parameters are:

* catalog=ANSS
* start_time=2009/01/01,00:00:00
* end_time=2010/07/31,00:00:00
* minimum_latitude=-39
* maximum_latitude=-33
* minimum_longitude=-74
* maximum_longitude=-67
* minimum_magnitude=5.0
* maximum_magnitude=10
* event_type=E

I can't see any 7-7.9 in Chile at all - which confirms what I have in my database.

I will continue checking later on as I have to go out shortly.

Edit: Checking on the link of significant quakes you gave I thinkl this may be one of your two Chile ones which is showing as MS 7.0 (MW 6.9)

MAR 11 14 39 43.9 34.290 S 71.891 W 11 G 6.9 0.9 415
LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE. MW 6.9 (UCMT), 6.9 (GCMT), 6.8 (GS),
6.8 (WCMT). mb 6.7 (GS). MS 7.0 (GS). ME 7.1 (GS). Mo 2.5*10**19
Nm (GCMT), 2.4*10**19 Nm (UCMT), 1.7*10**19 Nm (GS), 2.1*10**19
Nm (WCMT), 4.3*10**19 Nm (PPT). Es 9.5*10**14 Nm (GS).

I can't see the other one but the Lat and Lon suggest this one:
MAR 11 14 55 27.5 34.326 S 71.799 W 18 G 6.7 1.0 403
LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE. MW 6.7 (WCMT). mb 6.5 (GS). ML 6.4



[edit on 29/7/2010 by PuterMan]

THANKS TONS AND TONS AND TONS.

BTW, Have never been able to take screen shots reliably. You have a step by step lead by the hand tutorial???

In terms of that quake stuff . . . How often do you see that happen?

Does it happen more with some sites than others?

And, what is y'all's assessment of the "doughnut" quake theory as put forth here?

articles.latimes.com...

reply to post by PuterMan

---

Yes thats them
This from Significant Earthquakes Of The World, 2010
MAR 11 14 39 43.9 34.290 S 71.891 W 11 G 6.9 0.9 415
LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE. MW 6.9 (UCMT), 6.9 (GCMT), 6.8 (GS),
6.8 (WCMT). mb 6.7 (GS). MS 7.0 (GS). ME 7.1 (GS). Mo 2.5*10**19
Nm (GCMT), 2.4*10**19 Nm (UCMT), 1.7*10**19 Nm (GS), 2.1*10**19
Nm (WCMT), 4.3*10**19 Nm (PPT). Es 9.5*10**14 Nm (GS). Some
damage (VII) at Rancagua. Felt (VI) at Curico, Santiago, San
Vicente and Talca; (V) at Buin, Calera, Chillan, Colina,
Concepcion, Melipilla, San Antonio, San Fernando and Valparaiso;
(IV) at Angol, Limache, Los Andes, Penaflor, Petorca, Puente
Alto, Quillota, Quilpue, San Bernardo, Temuco, Villa Alemana and
Vina del Mar. Felt in much of central and southern Chile as far
as La Serena and Coihaique. Felt (V) at San Rafael, (IV) at
Cordoba, (III) at Mendoza and (II) at Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Felt at Montevideo, Uruguay and (II) at Asuncion, Paraguay. A
small tsunami was recorded with wave heights (peak-to-trough) of
29 cm at San Antonio and 16 cm at Valparaiso.

MAR 11 14 55 27.5 34.326 S 71.799 W 18 G 6.7 1.0 403
LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE. MW 6.7 (WCMT). mb 6.5 (GS). ML 6.4
(GUC). Mo 1.2*10**19 Nm (WCMT). Felt (V) at Talca; (IV) at San
Fernando, Santiago and Vina del Mar; (III) at Rancagua; (II) at
Quillota, San Antonio and Valparaiso. Also felt at Buin,
Chillan, Concepcion, Constitution, Curico, Machali, Puente Alto,
Quilpue, San Bernardo, San Felipe, San Fernando and Talagante.
Felt (III) at Mendoza, Argentina. Also felt at Bariloche,
Cordoba, San Juan and San Rafael. Felt at Asuncion, Paraguay.

I'll have to check that out again, firstly I have the source of the first one as Geofon at 7.2, but its still 7+ anyway on usgs/noaa

The 2nd one is more confusing, I have it as 7.0Ms on my Excel file, source is usgs, but it doesn't match with the Significant Earthquakes Of The World, 2010 details. But it does pass the mark anyway using Geofon data
This is what I had on a Notepad page, saved after a search on Geofon.
2010-03-11 14:39:46, 7.3, 34.17 S, 71.78 W, 20, M, Near Coast of Central Chile
2010-03-11 14:55:28, 7.2, 34.25 S, 71.90 W, 20, M , Near Coast of Central Chile
I remember when plotting them for the map that I got 3 different locations using the various sources, maybe I got them mixed up.
It could be I put usgs as the source when in fact I used geofon data, my Excel file for 2010 that I used for the map was just usgs and geofon sources.
I should get time to make it up to 2010 from 2006 this weekend rechecking the data.
The University of Chile site has the 14:55:28 one at 6.4ML and 6.7Mw and the 14:39:46 at 6.9Mw, so they did happen.


[edit on 29-7-2010 by muzzy]

Originally posted by BO XIAN
Screen shots

I would not rely on the build in Windows options (XP - don't know about Vista) I would go for one of the free programs. Older versions of Snagit that I use are FOC these days. See the Snagit site or google it.

In terms of that quake stuff . . . How often do you see that happen?

Quite often really.

Does it happen more with some sites than others?

Not really, they all have their moments.

And, what is y'all's assessment of the "doughnut" quake theory as put forth here?

articles.latimes.com...

Simply - I don't like it, but then I am a reactionary old coot so I will leave someone else to put their view as well.

[edit on 29/7/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by PuterMan

---

Much appreciate your great clear response with lots of data.

What is your sense of the doughnut theory about quakes?

And if you had to guess where a big quake would likely strike in CA next . . . where would your first 2 most likely spots be?

And what would you guess for a magnitude?

I realize that's asking a lot . . . LOL. I just expect that a human brain watching such things closely would maybe have some intuition or hunch about such things.

Be safe . . . times are a changin'

reply to post by PuterMan

---

THX AGAIN FOR A THOROUGH AND THOROUGHLY KIND RESPONSE.

What are your main technical reservations about the dougnut theory?

I'm an old coot myself. . . . I just try and not shut stuff out in a knee jerk way without some analytical consideration.

I have a couple of friends . . . one with his own webbot software working on his PhD in such and trying to avoid the interpretive errors that seem to plague Cliff High's system.

Another close friend is a bit of a Christian prophetic type. BOTH are saying the big quake thing is looming very close at hand.

Then there's a few other above average such sources saying similar things. So I'm happy to have a hard sciences old coot's input to weigh against such other inputs.

Thanks for the software suggestion.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
THANKS TONS AND TONS AND TONS.

BTW, Have never been able to take screen shots reliably. You have a step by step lead by the hand tutorial???

Depends on what computer/keyboard you are using. On my Desktop I go; Press Ctrl key and hold then Print Scrn with the other finger .... that saves the screen Then open Paint, click on Paste and it puts the screenshot there then its just a matter of saving to your computer as a jpeg or a bmp. On my Laptop, it doesn't have a Print Scrn key so I have a programme called Sniping Tool, which lets you make a box around whats on the screen and opens a window with it on there for you to save as you wish

In terms of that quake stuff . . . How often do you see that happen?

Quite often if you happen to be on line just after a multiple event big quake

Does it happen more with some sites than others?

Happens with all of them except the Australian and the Russian sites, they put on one magnitude initially and I haven't seen them change later.

And, what is y'all's assessment of the "doughnut" quake theory as put forth here?

articles.latimes.com...

I have had a look into that, and it has some merit, sometimes. The problem is the time span, as the theory was developed based on events in Alaska over a period of 20 years. I mean who has the attention span to wait 20 years to see if what you thought you saw came true

I seen one happen here in NZ in the week leading up to the 5.1 quake in Palmerston North, NZ on the 18th Nov 2009, for the 4 days prior a circle of Mag 2 quakes developed in an almost perfect circle around PN at an approx radius of 50km. It was a classic example, but unless you kept track of them every day you wouldn't see it. You may be able to spot the Mogi on the maps on this Cook Strait 2009 Nov 14th through 18th. What made it even more convincing was the pause before the 5.1, thats also a classic warning here in NZ , if things go quiet,, be ready.
it goes bip, bip,bip bip, bip, bip, flatline, flatline, BANG

Then again I have seen other possible Mogis develop in the same area but nothing happened.

Sometimes its a case of making a theory fit the data.
Or make the data fit the theory
Not sure which, now I'm confused again


[edit on 29-7-2010 by muzzy]

Mag. 5.0 in Columbia - Details

Map

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Anmarie96]

reply to post by BO XIAN

---

if you had to guess where a big quake would likely strike in CA next

Basically I would not. Especially not in CA! It is very easy for anyone to say 'the big one' is due but I care little for prophecy and absolutely nothing for web-bot predictions as that is just a simple re-iteration of the mass of (mostly mis)information out there. As I said in a different thread it is not the poor web-bot's fault, it just gets fed on rubbish most of the time. Taking some of the claims by some of the so called prediction sites they are nonsense. One site in particular, and I will not name it, predicts quakes in a range (as an example) between mag 3 and mag 5 - or sometimes even wider than that. This is complete and utter nonsense. A mag 5.5 is 5,623 times stronger than a mag 3 and 316 times bigger. That is not scientific it is just quesswork, especially since a mag 3 is not difficult in CA. Despite this he claims 90% accuracy. 90% BS most of the time I am afraid. So I predict that there will be a quake somewhere between Mag 7 and Mag 9 sometime in the nest 20,000 years. Bet I am right!!!

When I was young, in the days before plate tectonics, I learnt that faults are where earthquakes happen, and that movement in one fault can affect another. Now I read that this is just being realised by the 'scientists' and that this is a 'relatively new' field. Either I had an excellent Geology teacher or I dreamt this. Really, they are only just realising this? So they managed to say that one fault was building up pressure? Applause!!! As for the rest of this theory I feel that it is so vague as to be useless, although I see muzzy may not agree with me there. I believe, as muzzy indicated, that they may be trying to fit the data to the result. Since they are saying it takes place over decades they should have plenty of data and be able to start predicting - but they are not. Why is that I wonder. Perhaps it is because it does not work every time. And if it does not work every time it is pretty useless tool. I don't suppose they would tell us but of course worse still is not having the doughnut and still getting a big quake - try applying it to the recent batch in the Moro Gulf and see if it works.

No sorry don't think so, not for me (yet). Not without a lot more information and proven examples of which they should have data for thousands. I see this as a simple grant creating scheme - gimme money so we can study this and be able to predict earthquakes. (10 years later - Oh well it didn't work out in the end - too many variables)

There is a prediction system I am very interested in but that is all I can say at present.

And there you have it - broadside.

~Old Coot !!!

reply to post by muzzy

---

Happens with all of them except the Australian and the Russian sites, they put on one magnitude initially and I haven't seen them change later.

This is because they are obstinate bar stewards and obstinate programmers (!), I know because I have worked with both and you would not get anything for free or get them to change.

Both countries.


[edit on 29/7/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by muzzy

---

GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR KIND AND INFORMATIVE REPLY.

Wil try the screen capture instructions. Thanks tons.

Your analysis sounds quite reasonable about the quake stuff.

Is it your conviction that quakes have NOT been moderating significantly over all in the last year?

Or have you noticed some subtle to not so subtle trend changes?

The Human Seismograph Says: Big Earthquake Eminent
  Posted 19 days ago with 90 member flags

Trees that witnessed the rise and fall of empires throughout history
  Posted 3 days ago with 90 member flags

An unusual tree called Jaboticaba
  Posted 6 days ago with 77 member flags

Haunting pics of abandoned cities around the world
  Posted 2 days ago with 62 member flags

Strange Sounds (UK) published on youtube on 5/13/2012
  Posted 14 days ago with 53 member flags

Pole Shift Data You Shouldn\'t Ignore
  Posted 11 days ago with 46 member flags

Tunguska Event: The "Impactor" is buried in the bottom of Lake Cheko!
  Posted 10 days ago with 42 member flags

Indian state says it\'s OK now to kill tiger poachers on sight
  Posted 3 days ago with 41 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: