Strong Earthquakes Increasing. Disrupting Planet's Magnetic Field?

reply to post by soficrow


Depends which list you are using. If you are using IRIS the depths are very often 1 - it is an error.

By the way you are aware of the 'defaults' depths?

2,10,35 for USGS

I assume you meant Sakura-jima? I had not heard there was a new eruption, but then it is always erupting. It is one of the 16 'always erupting'

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by soficrow

 

Depends which list you are using.

I always post my sources. As indicated - emsc-csem, with Japan Quake as back-up.

I assume you meant Sakura-jima?

Re: another thread? ...used both Sakurajima and Sakura-jima depending on source; title used "as is" from source. ...fyi - you don't need to nitpick, be petty and put others down to prove your own credibility. Be confident!

Originally posted by soficrow
Re: another thread? ...used both Sakurajima and Sakura-jima depending on source; title used "as is" from source. ...fyi - you don't need to nitpick, be petty and put others down to prove your own credibility. Be confident!

When it comes to earthquakes, PuterMan has already proven his credibility, 1000 times over. I don't think you really know who you are talking to, sofi. Backup a step and listen.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by soficrow
Re: another thread? ...used both Sakurajima and Sakura-jima depending on source; title used "as is" from source. ...fyi - you don't need to nitpick, be petty and put others down to prove your own credibility. Be confident!

When it comes to earthquakes, PuterMan has already proven his credibility, 1000 times over. I don't think you really know who you are talking to, sofi. Backup a step and listen.

I respect PuterMan's knowledge - but wonder why he's addressing spelling issues (Sakurajima v/s Sakura-jima) and avoiding a serious question, asked in good faith.

...I noted earlier that there was a 3 hour period where ALL the quakes reported were extremely shallow - and asked him what he made of it. It was a sincere question - but he dismissed it pretty much out of hand, and went on to nitpick because the (copied+pasted) title on another thread did not hyphenate Sakura-jima.



...I think something big is on the way - my hypothesis is that a feedback loop has been established that keeps getting tweaked (solar activity+), hasn't stopped and won't be stopping for a while yet. Just saw in another thread that PuterMan thinks there will be a major quake in a month or so - I am not yet clear on his hypothesis, but I am sure it has much merit and want to learn more about it.

...The issue I was addressing in my post above had to do with a kind of "academic competitiveness" that keeps resurfacing on ATS - it used to have the effect of shutting down everyone but a few "chosen" experts. NG imho. Perhaps that's not where PuterMan is coming from - but it's what I was reacting to.

FYI - a bit more info:

Following a solar flare and pre- and post solar storms, the Earth experiences low, extremely-low (ELF) and ultra-low (ULF) frequencies.

Prior to some earthquakes, the crust 'emits' ELFs and ULFs.

The feedback loop I'm talking about probably is triggered by these harmonics - the ongoing loop likely involves other factors.

Make sense?

reply to post by soficrow


Well to be honest, I think if anybody in particular had exactly nailed the way this planet works, by now we'd have an accurate earthquake prediction model.

And as to academic competition, it is helpful in that it pushes us to learn more. But the title of EXPERT really should be reserved for those with degrees and lifelong study in the field. Bob Smith would be an example. He's an expert. And I can tell you what people of his caliber describe this site as:

MAYHEM.

Can't say I blame them. We need to remember that we're just a bunch of wannabe's trying to play ball with people in another league.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by soficrow

 

Well to be honest, I think if anybody in particular had exactly nailed the way this planet works, by now we'd have an accurate earthquake prediction model.

I don't. And I don't think "prediction" is the appropriate goal - it just happens to be the one that sells and gets funding. Fact is, an earthquake in one location can trigger another 500 miles away 10 years later - and that has been documented.

In our world - knowledge or information that makes money sells; information that interferes with profits gets buried.

And as to academic competition, it is helpful in that it pushes us to learn more.

I think that focusing on investigation, problem-solving, cooperation and teamwork is more productive by far.

We already know that "academic competition" just leads to tenure and dogma - the establishment and maintenance of closed-shop old boys clubs. At best, the establishment and maintenance of closed-shop new boys clubs.

But the title of EXPERT really should be reserved for those with degrees and lifelong study in the field. Bob Smith would be an example. He's an expert. And I can tell you what people of his caliber describe this site as:

MAYHEM.

Can't say I blame them. We need to remember that we're just a bunch of wannabe's trying to play ball with people in another league.

I think, therefor I am. I have a right to consider, investigate, speak, make mistakes, eat crow and everything. Forget wannabe. I AM!

I will NOT rollover and let the International Atomic Energy Agency tell me what to think or how or when.

A "Defining Moment" for ATS - March, 2011

reply to post by soficrow

Re: another thread? ...used both Sakurajima and Sakura-jima depending on source; title used "as is" from source. ...fyi - you don't need to nitpick, be petty and put others down to prove your own credibility. Be confident!

Well I do beg your pardon, I was neither nitpicking nor being petty. Perhaps you might look back at what you wrote as I am not in the habit of nit-picking in that manner, neither do I need to prove my own credibility. Take what I say as you will, but note that I was merely trying to clarify to which volcano you were referring as you said....

And the new eruption from Sakajura?

I don't think that is unreasonable, especially since you might have been talking about some volcano I had not heard about. Unlikely but you never know.

At the risk of nit-picking I said "which list" since in the post to which I was replying you did NOT attribute the source. If you did then I can't see it. My apologies if I missed it.

I realise you were tired so that is OK. What is not OK is having a go at me without checking what you are having a go at!

Good thing I have a thick skin!

reply to post by soficrow


I know this was directed to TA but.....

but wonder why he's addressing spelling issues (Sakurajima v/s Sakura-jima)

Note my previous post. I was not addressing the difference you have mentioned here. I am well aware it can be and is spelt both ways.

and avoiding a serious question, asked in good faith.

In what way was I avoiding a serious question? I said in my post that it needed more investigation. I don't have the time to jump to attention and give you an instant answer. The depth issue has to be analysed. It is not sufficient to say they are shallower, what matters is where they occurred. Does the depth follow the subducting plate? Is there signs that the quakes are moving down this zone? This requires a time analysis with a graph of depths plotted by latitude and longitude.

reply to post by soficrow


Hi...just wondering if there is any bearing...two magnitude 6.8 earthquakes near same location in Mynmar near the China-Thai border...one pretty shallow and the other deep as reported by USGS. The news article in on CNN online: edition.cnn.com...

Also, there two good sized sunspot (1176 & 1177) with potential for M-Class flares and if they let off a big X-Class...it could be a good opportunity to see if they have any possibility of triggering an earthquake.

Just a thought...cheers & keep up the excellent work.

reply to post by Surya68


Please read this post which explains.

It is one quake not two.

reply to post by PuterMan


Yes! I am SO glad you have a thick skin. :muah:

May we both strive for greater clarity, fewer misunderstandings and continuing forgiveness.

Now. How about my hypothesis? What do you really think? Do yours and mine support each other?

reply to post by soficrow


Looking at the depths I would have to say that there really is nothing conclusive at all about them. They are all over the place!

First the time series of the depths. This shows a linear trend of getting deeper, but that is not the best indicator. The polynomial trend line follows the data closer and that shows a small upturn just at this time.

Sorry these are big graphs:



Looking next at the depths as bands, where one might expect to see some evidence of quakes moving down the zone, I have to say that I can see no pattern at all. Each band seems to be scattered relatively evenly over the active area. This may not be significant since they are almost all less than 60km depth so not particularly deep.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b9561c00e85.jpg[/atsimg]

We may possibly see some deeper ones in the future as this progresses.

reply to post by PuterMan


Thanks.

I eagerly await your further wisdom.

...Just to confirm - you do get that I'm concerned about the quakes' proximity to the reactors, and their ability to further damage already stressed/damaged materials? I've only been watching Fukushima - roughly 37N 140E - and there've been several very shallow quakes in the +5M range (as well as the +6's yesterday(?) ).

reply to post by soficrow


By the way you were asking about the reason that a Mag 8 is expected. I was going to explain but I just happened to come across this a few minutes ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

By the way that person's father IS a seismologist with USGS (Retired) although the poster does not say that. I have spoken at length before with them.

Basically the poster's father said what I would have said - not unexpectedly! - he should after all know better than me.

reply to post by PuterMan


...I agree with you and your friend's father, and have from the getgo. ...The planet "rings like a bell" and resonates long after a major quake, so a flurry of quakes is predictable and as you say, another mag +8 within a year can be expected.

We agree on this, and really do NOT need to discuss it further. Sorry if there has been some misunderstanding.

But, a number of issues do remain open for discussion:

1. Increase in EQ activity, beginning 30 years ago.

You don't have the data and can't comment - I understand and accept that. But the issue remains.

…the number and severity of earthquakes appear to have increased over the last 30 years ……The U.S. Geological Survey says there were 1,085 major earthquakes in the 1980s. This increased in the 1990s by about 50 per cent to 1,492 and to 1,611 from 2000 to 2009. …There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan.

2. Relative impacts of earthquakes, compared to 30 years ago.

a. Even small quakes do more damage than they used to, especially when they're near nuclear power plants - and the whole world will be affected by the resulting radioactive fallout.

The past 30 years has seen a proliferation of nuclear power plants, notably in Japan. In addition, There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan..

A recipe for disaster, methinks. And the reason for my focus on quakes near Fukushima (roughly 37N, 140E) where the nuclear plants already were damaged by the March 11 quake.

Several mag +5 and +6 earthquakes have occurred at and near Fukushima since March 11 - it's inconceivable that the initial damage hasn't been aggravated, or that the situation hasn't deteriorated significantly.

An admission that the core may have been damaged (Fukushima, reactor 3) finally came this morning from Japan's nuclear and industrial safety agency official, Hidehiko Nishiyama. Reported by the Daily Mail: Three 'Fukushima Fifty' workers taken to hospital were exposed to radiation 10,000 times the safety maximum


b. Industrial activity has modified the earth's crust substantially in the past 30 years - arguably destabilizing the planet's geophysical integrity.

Geomagnetic activity may be the key here - zones and lines that were historically conductive or non-conductive have been disrupted and/or modified.

3. Seismic Triggers.

Again, my focus is geomagnetic activity - from cosmic and solar sources, the ELF and ULF generated by earthquakes themselves and possibly, downstream effects from HAARP.

Our observations of earthquake swarms following a major quake supports the theory that quakes trigger quakes. The question remains whether or not the phenomenon results solely from plates "adjusting," or from a combination of factors including geomagnetic forces.

I started this thread with the observation:

Originally posted by soficrow
There have been 16 quakes over 5.0M in the past 14 hours of Sunday March 20, compared with 9 on Saturday the 19th; 15 on Friday the 18th; and 11 on Thursday the 17th - according to the European-Meditteranean Seismological Centre.

Even assuming that reports were censored on March 19 to defer panic about the Super Moon, earthquake activity seems to be accelerating suddenly and dramatically.

Clearly, activity following the March 11 quake was diminishing before the Super Moon - then it picked up again, fairly dramatically.

The timing alone suggests a relationship.

RE: Seismic Triggers above. Interesting that I forgot to include that Quakes Trigger Quakes. All things considered.

Quakes over mag 7 can trigger large quakes within a distance of 2 times the length of the fault, and smaller quakes at a great distance, according to scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey and University of Texas at El Paso. Global earthquake clusters are just a coincidence, they conclude.

The scientists did not address the idea of a chain reaction. For example, the diameter of the earth is 7,926.41 miles at the equator. So if 20 faults averaging 500 miles long intersect in a zigzag around the globe, it could take 10 sequential quakes to circle the planet and end up back at the original site.

From USGS:

…major quakes do trigger other big ones close by and smaller ones far away, researchers said.

…we don't think that large, global earthquake clusters are anything more than coincidence...

…Big quakes were noted a distance of two times the length of the fault from a major shaking, although smaller quakes could be triggered at great distance…

AND - this morning there was another mag 6.3 near Fukushima, depth 10K.

2011-03-29 10:54:32.0
37.40 N 142.38 E 10
6.3 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

reply to post by PuterMan


In case you missed it. Detailed response here - please note the lsit of unaddressed issue.

Thanks, sofi

reply to post by soficrow


OK, as I have said I am busy at this time but here you are just to keep you quiet (I doubt that )

Since you have been pressing me this is a quick version based on the USGS Centennial Catalogue for dates between 1960 and 2001, on ANSS data from 2002 to 2008 inclusive and on data I have collected from USGS 7 day listings for 2009 and 2010.

I say a quick version because I have not checked all the latest 7 day versions against the ANSS catalogue however the difference will be very minor and if anything would probably very slightly lower the figures for 2009 and 2010.

These are only for Magnitude 6.5+ as data before 1964 for lower magnitude quakes is not in the Centennial.

The graph below has linear and polynomial trends for Energy in Terajoules and for Counts. You can see that the linear average for counts is up but the total energy is down.



This is a graph of the average amount of energy released for eah Mag 6.5+ quake per year (Not really a meaningful figure other than to indicate a trend. As you can see it pretty much matches the energy curve.



I will leave you to decide the significance of that data set.

reply to post by soficrow


With regard to the statement about Japan

There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan

from your source (Canada?)

I have to beg to differ at least as far as 2001. Obviously this year will have changed the graph.



This does not look much different than the other energy graph so I have no reason to suspect that 2002 to 2010 would be any different. It is quite clear that there was more going on in the 60s and 70s - but then I don't suppose most of you youngsters remember then.