Quake Watch 2011

reply to post by PuterMan




Well you don't think I would announce that here, do you?

Why let a good crisis go to waste? That would be a great starter post to get DoomHeaven going! Of course by then, what would be the point, with the end of the world and all.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

 

Japan about 500 Mega-tonnes of TNT
Indonesia (very roughly) 598 Mega-tonnes of TNT

Both based on 10 months following the event mag 4+. The Indonesia figure is a slightly wider catchment area because I don't have time to stripe it just now but it will be close enough.

Is that off your own data or from NEIC el. al. ?
I had a closer look, using USGS/NEIC Search and Indonesia is waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of Japan based on the same time period (6853 hours), that extra 0.1 of magnitude and not having had a Mag 8.6 aftershock really makes a huge difference, even though there were more Mag 7's at Japan.
Here's a table comparing the two


For those that can't see images here is what it shows;
Sumatra 2004
Circular Search 1000km radius from
Lat 3.295, Long 95.982
2004/12/26 00:58:53 to 2005/10/7 01:47:15 (6853 hours (= timespan of current Japan sequence))
All magnitudes.

4822 Aftershocks = 798,746,633 TTNT
Mainshock 9.1 = 673,609,687 TTNT
Mag 8.6 = 119,786,624 TTNT
2 x Mag 7.2 = 1,902,998 TTNT
38 x Mag 6.0-6.8 = 1,922,068 TTNT
649 x Mag 5.0-5.9 = 1,121,322 TTNT
3948 x 4.0-4.9 = 402,967 TTNT
102 Mag 3.6-3.9 = 967 TTNT
81 with undetermined magnitude

Japan 2011
Circular Search 1000km radius from
Lat 38.297, Long 142.373
2011/03/11 05:46:24 to 2011/11/23 19:24:31 (6853 hours)
All magnitudes.

4787 Aftershocks = 498,851,553 TTNT
Mainshock Mag 9.0 = 476,879,138 TTNT
4 x 7.0-7.9 = 17,177,155 TTNT
72 x Mag 6.0-6.7 = 2,896,225 TTNT
701 x Mag 5.0-5.9 = 1,426,578 TTNT
4010 x Mag 4.0-4.9 = 472,456 TTNT

*TTNT = tonnes of TNT


roughly the 4's and 5's about the same number, but twice as many Mag 6's and 7's at Japan, still doesn't counter balance that extra 0.1 and the 8.6 at Sumatra

ETA: while I have the two files open, using the extremes of Latitude listed, Fault length?
Sumatra, From 12.247N, 94.749E to -3.9S, 101.28E is 1944km
Japan, From 47.13N, 144.567E to 29.356N, 141.809 is1991 km
* may be constrained by the search parameter of 1000km radius from the Mainshock epicenters, so not very scientific

reply to post by muzzy


Umm, I do hope you realize that the 9.0 in Japan was upped to 9.1 by Global CMT? Puterman did not go with that until he saw it in the catalogs, but I reported on it in a thread quite a while back. So there is your .1 difference?

And oh, in unrelated news, OK just had two more quakes, 2.7 and 3.3. So either the fracking Gods are at it again, or branches of a fault continue to rupture...

reply to post by TrueAmerican

You will see in the text in my post that I used USGS/NEIC data, directly off the web site, if they have upped the magnitude they have not altered the database.
I can't compare using data manipulated by another source.

reply to post by muzzy


As to which database PM saw that in, not sure...PM??

But it did happen, I can dig up the thread if you like.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Thats OK TA, even if so the USGS are still showing 9.0 everywhere on their web site
eg earthquake.usgs.gov...

even if it were the case and we gave Japan as 9.1, Japan is still 103,164,532 tonnes shy = a Mag 8.556

reply to post by TrueAmerican


ANSS has it at 9.1 Mw for Japan, and it was also in the QED bulletins. and 9.0 for Banda Aceh but some catalogues have as much as 9.3.

It is all relative!! Basically they were both big, but both tiddlers compared to Chile 1960.

New quake just hit OK, again today, and this is a bit bigger, might make it to 4.0 or better...Waiting on USGS, saw it in GEE just now.

Amplitude reference at TA.V35A: 250 microns/sec. At TA.W35A: 50 microns/sec.


3.2?

Umm no.



the 3.3 earlier today did not register anywhere near no 250 microns/sec, and it was nearly in the same spot. Report the truth, darnit USGS. If I have to go dig up the fricken wave, I will to prove my point.


Well I DID go dig up the 3.3:


A measily 65 microns or so.

So how is it that the top is a 3.2? :shk: Newbies on the night shift. I swear.

reply to post by muzzy


So my very rough calculation at 98 Megatonnes less was about right then since you got 103. Not so far out.

And note I used meddlingtonnes and not petulantjulians

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I know it was bigger....

The pipes in my house were making a "thunking sound", so I thought it was way closer until I checked GEE.

I don`t know why they are making these " errors".

reply to post by dragonlover12


In all fairness, it could be real close to station, and that could be the reason. But from the maps I am seeing, and also based on your report, I think we both know that quake was bigger. 250 to 65 is an awful darn big disparity. So between both of us, I think we can confidently say one more time...The USGS got it wrong.

reply to post by PuterMan


I'll have a look at Chile 1960, but expect the data won't be as comprehensive being prior to the 1970's USGS great leap forward with seismic recording technology.
Just looking back at the comparison graph a page back you can see the drawbacks to doing timeline graphs to certain restrictions. In the recent past I did 72 hrs (3 days) aftershock timeline graphs for Christchurch, Japan, Haiti, Van, and Inangahua for comparison purposes, but if I did a 72hr graph for Sumatra it would miss the 4th day when all hell broke loose again after the 8.6, and at Christchurch the biggest aftershocks were 6 and 10 months later
Where do you draw the line?

East of Yellowstone, 19:20 UTC, something went boom. Mining? There have been many recently. This signal is bigger than normal. Blowing up earth. One bit at a time. Seems wise enough.

www.youtube.com...

Edit. Because I was wrong. There's lots of other booms previously recorded that are of the same size.

reply to post by muzzy


Taken over the 10 months period the Mega-tonnes of TNT in 1960 was approximately wait for it..................


Chile 1960 - 2700 Mt TNT

That is why I said Japan @ 500 and Indonesia @ 600 were tiddlers!



By the way it says Chile 2010 because that is the lat/lon box I defined for 2010

More useless facts:
From the day after the Chile quake, i.e. 22 May 1960 it took until 22 July 1962 before the same amount of energy had been released as that one 2692.84 Mtons TNT had been released again worldwide.

From that point forwards it was not until September 1995 that a further 2700 Mt TNT had been released.

I can't take it further except to say that from that point is was 400 Mt to mid 2002 where the Centennial data ends. I don't have annualised ANSS data in my database yet (note to self Mm and why not? ) so not quick to continue but even with Japan and Indonesia I don't think we reached the next 2700 point yet.

reply to post by PuterMan


yep
but even Mega tons is hard to relate to unless you are testing Nuclear weapons.
I can relate to a 1/2 ton or rubbish in the back of my small truck, and convert rubbish to boxes of TNT and how much of a kaboom that would make, multiply it by 478 small trucks of TNT to get a Mag 4.8 is even comprehensible, but no matter which way you look at it 953,758,276 small trucks of TNT (a Mag 9) is one heck of a wallup thats hard to picture

reply to post by PuterMan


That's pretty damn unbelievable, and thanks for all your work here, one more time.

Now that I think about it, I can't recall ever reading about any quake anywhere in the history of man that was as big, or released more energy. The eruption of Toba or Krakatoa, maybe?

So the 9.5 in Chile is probably the biggest quake any of us will ever hear of in this lifetime, because they are darn rare. Unless, of course, we were to happen to witness the rapid movement of an entire plate. In which case, was nice knowing yas

Strange... Back in 1811-1813, there was a huge earthquake measuring approx 7.9-8.0 off the coast of central California which is around 50 miles north from where I live. There was an account from an otterskin trader, but it was considered a tall tale... Then a written account was found that was dated 1813 instead of 1811 like it was initially. You can see the fault line west from Lompoc near a place called Pt Arguello on Google Earth or Maps (looks like a four-pronged pitchfork.) There hasn't been any earthquakes there since. I'm still getting used to the rules on this site as this is only my second post , but if you search 'Santa Barbara Tsunami', you can find more information and possibly piece something together. If the New Madrid goes off again, it might mean another large one off the coast here.

In the last 24 hours, there have been no earthquakes 4.5+M in the eastern part of the ring of fire. The only quake bigger than 4.5M in the west was Chile 4.9M.

Now tell me that doesnt look weird. Earthquakes have just stopped in the east?

No quakes hey? Earth is taking a day off.

Record snowfall here today for November, most snow since 1980. Usually we get no snow 'til the mid-end of December. It's kinda eerie. There was 10-15c weather for a while, then all of a sudden there's snow banks everywhere and the air is so quiet, you can hear a pin drop outside.