It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
FAQs - Earthquake Myths
•Can you predict earthquakes?
Q: Can you predict earthquakes?
A: No. Neither the USGS nor Caltech nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake. They do not know how, and they do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future. However based on scientific data, probabilities can be calculated for potential future earthquakes. For example, scientists estimate that over the next 30 years the probability of a major EQ occurring in the San Francisco Bay area is 67% and 60% in Southern California.
The USGS focuses their efforts on the long-term mitigation of earthquake hazards by helping to improve the safety of structures, rather than by trying to accomplish short-term predictions.
Q: Is there earthquake weather?
In the 4th Century B.C., Aristotle proposed that earthquakes were caused by winds trapped in subterranean caves. Small tremors were thought to have been caused by air pushing on the cavern roofs, and large ones by the air breaking the surface. This theory lead to a belief in earthquake weather, that because a large amount of air was trapped underground, the weather would be hot and calm before an earthquake. A later theory stated that earthquakes occurred in calm, cloudy conditions, and were usually preceded by strong winds, fireballs, and meteors.
There is no such thing as "earthquake weather". Statistically, there is approximately an equal distribution of earthquakes in cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, etc. Very large low-pressure changes associated with major storm systems (typhoons, hurricanes, etc) are known to trigger episodes of fault slip (slow earthquakes) in the Earth’s crust and may also play a role in triggering some damaging earthquakes. However, the numbers are small and are not statistically significant.
Enhanced: Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted
Robert J. Geller, David D. Jackson, Yan Y. Kagan, Francesco Mulargia
R. J. Geller [HN1] is at the Department of Earth and Planetary Physics, Faculty of Science, Tokyo University, Yayoi 2-11-16, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan. E-mail:******* D. D. Jackson and Y. Y. Kagan [HN2-3] are at the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, USA. E-mail:******* and *******. F. Mulargia [HN4] is at the Dipartimento di Fisica, Settore di Geofisica, Universita di Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 8, 40127 Bologna, Italy. E-mail:*******
Q: Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has earthquake activity been increasing? Does this mean a big one is going to hit? OR We haven't had any earthquakes in a long time; does this mean that the pressure is building up?
A: Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years...
Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by sdebunker
Not sure what you mean by nick name, my last two posts were directed at another member not yourself.
Also, the USGS collaborates with the other countries, in fact they mention them in one of the excerpts I have above. (I assume you saw that?)
Regardless, I am not saying YOU are predicting earthquakes. I am saying the "rain makes quakes" article is. I also pointed out that it was a big chunk of your OPost, which explains why you choose to keep the faulty information in your post.
It doesn't matter, it is commonplace here on ATS to forgo science in favor of the "magical". I was not bothered, until the other poster decided he/she was going to "step on my toes". As I stated, I had left the thread.
Regardless, this is all off topic. And I applaud your research (Third time I think) I only beefed with that one part, was going to let it go then for some reason my toes didn't hurt from not being stepped on.
PART 5. SUNSPOTS: A 200-YEAR CYCLE
5. The 200-year sunspot cycle is also a weather cycle.
The other supercycle, besides the Gleissberg, that most often is referred to in the present-day data, is a 200-year supercycle. The Gleissberg cycle is usually cited with one of two values, accurately as 78 years, inaccurately as 80 years, but the 200-year cycle has no agreed-upon value, mostly the values referred to are from 180 to 220 years.
Explicitly there is no 200-year cycle in the Elatina data, but I have interpreted that the 29.2 "sawtooth pattern" represents a cycle of 173 years, which means that it may be a variant of the 200-year cycle. In addition, the longest of the remaining Elatina supercycles is 105 years. There is also a 52-year cycle, which is not seen in today's data. One interpretation could be that the corresponding cycles today are 105 (weak) and 210 (strong) years. There are indications that the possible 200-year cycle really oscillates today. Would this hint to limits of 170 and 210 years in Elatina data, corresponding to from 180 to 220 years in today's data. That may mean a change in the Sun's cyclicity or in the Earth's rotation rate or rather a mixup of these both factors.
The Gleissberg cycle has no obvious subcycles (other than the seven basic cycles), but the 200-year cycle clearly consists of two parts of 100 years, which oscillate between 80 and 120 years and is intertwined with the Gleissberg cycle. It seems that the cycle 120/60/30 years or maybe more accurately 26.5/53/106/212 years are also weather cycles. At least at the moment (2001) the 200-year cycle seems to have a value of 211.4 years.
The following minima are minima smoothed by one sunspot cycle or 11 years (actually they are low maxima per cycle). The minima between the Sporer minimum in 1496+-1 and the Maunder minimum in 1695 is 198-200 years. The minima between the Maunder minimum and the Dalton minimum in 1815 is 120 years. There are indications of a warm spell beginning around 1755. Thus we have here a 55-60-year weather cycle: around 1870 began a cold spell which had its coldest phase around 1900, 1930's had a warm spell, 1960's had a cold spell, 1990's again a warm spell, which culminated in 1998. I predict that the Sun is now going towards low intensity, and the warm spell ends in the 2010's. The 2020's will again be a cold decade.
But everything is relative. The colder spells are not so cold as the earlier ones and warmer spells are a little warmer than the previous ones. This is caused by a larger oscillation, the 100/200/400-year oscillation. The Medieval warm lasted from about 930 to 1300, with an aftermath about 1350-1370. The Little Ice Age began after that getting a real escalation about 1400 and having two great (Sporer and Maunder) and some smaller really cold periods. After the first warm period about 1760-1800, there was the Dalton minimum from 1800 to 1830, from which we are now going again towards a warmer period, compared to the Medieval maximum.
"The disturbances of the early third century were nothing compared with what would follow the end of the Severan dynasty in 235 AD. The half century from 235 to 284 AD was a period of unparalleled crisis, during which the Roman Enmpire nearly came to an end... This is a period for which comparatively little documentation exists, but that in itself may be symptomatic... Barbarian incursions were frequent and ruinous between 248 and 268... It was Diocletian who, in a reign from 284 to his voluntary abdication in 305, quelled the barbarians, defeated usurpers, and at the same time initiated sweeping political and economic changes that transformed the nature of the Empire, and ensured its survival for a while longer... In the mid fifth century the West was gradually lost. Areas like Spain and Africa were temporarily or permanently lost to the barbarians... In 439 Vandals took Carthage... In the 20 years following the death of Valentinian III (455 AD), the Roman Army proper dwindled to nothing." (Tainter 1988, pp. 137-148).
Was there something like the Sporer minimum in the 200's and Maunder minimum in the 400's or rather vice versa as the following shows? What makes this a relevant question is that according to Schove there was only 7 cycles from 192 AD to 302 AD. This means that there most probably was 7 Jovian years plus a 27 year cessation. A real mother of all Maunders. Was this the reason for the Barbarian invasions at that time? Did they escape the terrible cold? And when the second cold spell came 200 years later, were also the Vandals attacking for the reason of the cold weather? Did the mighty Roman Army dwindle to nothing in just 20 years for this same reason?
There were 220 years between the Barbarian incursions from 230 AD to 270 AD and demise of the Roman Army after the Vandals from 450 AD to 490 AD.
Was it the warming of the climate that gave Diocletian and his followers the chance to revive The Roman Empire? There is one other historical moment whose simultaneous appearance gives this thought some credence. "The earliest inscriptions so far discovered in recognized Mayan lands are dated AD 292 and 320, dates on the threshold of the splendid Classic Period... The earliest date mentioned on inscriptions at Uaxactun is AD 328..." (Whitlock 1976). There is no known Columbus or other connector at that time between The Roman Empire and the Mayans.
Now it seems like this 100/200-year Maunder-like cyclity continued. The period of 200 years seems to oscillate between 180 and 220 years. The 220 is best approximated by 100+120 years and the 180 years by 60+120 years.
120 years of warm period passed. Then in 608 AD Euphrates froze. After the warm 700's, in 829 AD Nile froze (Cambridge CCNet 1998). The century of 800's belong to the dark ages. Again we have here 220 years.
"Another period of expansion [of the Mayas] extended from AD 731-90, when three splendid new centres were founded... Soon afterwards decline set in..." (Whitlock 1976)." "...the Maya of the Southern Lowlands, whose society underwent a rapid, dramatic, and justly famous collapse between about 790 and 890 AD." (Tainter 1988, pp. 152-153). "There is no trace of the large-scale destruction and fires which would have marked an invasion or an earth-quake." (Whitlock 1976, p. 26).
"The Norwegian farmer Folke Vilgerdson made the first attempt to settle in Iceland in about 865 AD... He lost his cattle in a severe winter and disappointed went back to Norway after having seen a fjord filled up by sea ice. Therefore he called the country Iceland. Only a few years later, in 874, Ingolf Arnason succeeded. He was followed by many others, and settlement was completed in 930 AD... In 982, Erik the Red discovered new land West of Iceland. He called it Greenland; according to the Greenlander Saga this was only to persuade people to follow him... But the O(18) curve suggests that the name described a reality... So the drastic climatic change [warming] late in the ninth century may be part of the reason why Iceland and Greenland did not get the opposite names." (Dansgaard: Palaeo-Climatic Studies on Ice Cores, in Oeschger, Messerli and Svilar, 1980).
"The beneficent times came to an end. Sea ice and stormier seas made the passages between Norway, Iceland and Greenland more difficult after AD 1200... In mainland Europe, disastrous harvests were experienced in the latter part of the thirteenth and in the early fourteenth century." (Grove 1988, pp. 1-2). The cold decades of 1680-1700 are very well documented, at least in Europe. (See for example Rothlisberger 1986). The glaciers in Alps increased, there was no good wine, harvests were a catastrophe and famine killed like the black death centuries before. Cold was also the decade of 1810-1820, including "the summer that did not come" or a "year without summer". The Tambora volcanic eruption has been accused for this summerless year 1816. Maybe it helped a little, but the cold spell had already begun from the spotless year 1810, with which Tambora had nothing to do.
If we take the Schove estimates of the maximum magnitudes (R(M)) from the period 1500-1750 and the measurements from 1750, we get (the rounding for exact centuries done only to make the general picture clear):
1410-1500 ? cold (Sporer minimum)
1510-1600 107 warm
1610-1700 61 cold (Maunder minimum)
1710-1800 114 warm
1810-1900 95 cold (Dalton minimum)
1910-2000 151 warm
2010-2100 ? cold?
So the supercyclic rise is a very long process, maybe a 1000- or a 2000-cycle or even longer. The Sun seems to be much more irregular than we ever have imagined. The historical data seem to show that the 200-year oscillation has been there at least since 200 AD. The even centuries seem to be have been cold, odd ones warm, not to the accuracy of year, but in the average anyway. If a spotless sun during the third century caused the process of the Great Roman Empire demise to begin, we have to write the history books anew.
The other thing that seems apparent is that the general warming trend has been going on at least 1,800 years so that the third century AD may be the coldest century for at least 2000 years. Its only rival is the latter part of the 17th century. 1690's may have been almost as cold as the years 250 to 270. The cold periods later during the first millennium AD are more dramatical than the Little Ice Age thousand years later. On the other hand we may now live in the second mildest climate Anno Domini.Warmer periods seem to have occurred only between 1000 to 1200 AD. This may even have greater implications to the whole Holocene climate study and possibly to ice age theories also. Considering the evidence it looks a bit exaggerated and hasty a conclusion that the recent rise of half a degree would have been caused by man. So great are the natural variations.
The evidence of man's role put into forefront in the IPCC Report 4 of 2007 is somewhat daring and based on very scanty evidence. If we compare the small warming and its oscillations during the 20th century with what has happened during the past, say 2000 years, we get a perspective that tells us how smooth and peaceful the, I would suggest, natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age and especially Maunder Minimum has been. But man has always wanted to be in the center of the world. CO2 is the precondition for the multicellular life as we know it. Evidence is on the side that CO2 and its relation to Earth's temperature is a very complicated system. it's far from one-to-one relationship, there are so many intervening variables.
One solar-based climate change may have a period of about 1050 years. There are many reports of a cold period beginning about 850BC (Geel et al.: Solar Forcing of Abrupt Climate Change around 850 Calendar Years BC), there begins around 200 AD a period of low cycles which transforms into a cold period around 230 AD (see above), consisting of a maximum length Gleissberg cycle and lastly the low periods beginning in 1250 AD (Schove) leading to the rapid deterioration of the climate beginning about 1270-1280 AD, which led to the end for the Medieval Maximum and for example to the demise of the Greenland habitat and forced Europeans to invent the warming system for their houses. The cold period lasted in all cases about 80 years beginning an oscillating period of 660 years. So there are intervening some 400 years of a warm period (for example the Medieval maximum).
5.2. An autocorrelation analysis
To see the supercycles in my data I run an autocorrelation analysis of my 236-year data of the years 1762-1997. Primarily the purpose was to see, if and how (with which possible secondary harmonics) the 200-year cycle appears in this data and does it have some peak clearly over the others. I run the whole data (14,000 correlations), but because of the different character of the Gleissberg cycle and its double harmonics I expected to see only the 200-year variants not the Gleissberg, which almost also what was happened. Something was however expected to be seen near the basic cycle. Which of the many variants (4-5) has the highest autocorrelation, i.e. which is the "real" cycle? 11.1 years was condemned in the introduction to be only a compromise.
There are four cycles, whose correlation exceeds 40 %: Before inspecting them more throughly, I will notice that lowering the the limit to 35%, three more peaks appeared. They peak at 21.7 years (Hale), 120.3 years and 178.6 years. But the highest correlations are as follows:
TABLE 39. Cycles with autocorrelation above 40% in the 236-year data
1. cycle years (r**2 > .40)
2. cycle years (r**2 > .60)
3. cycle years (r**2 > .80)
4. the highest cycle year with one decimal
5. the highest correlation
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. 8.9- 11.9y 10.2- 10.7y 10.3y 0.61
2. 199.4-203.1y 200.1-202.6y 201.0-201.7y 201.4y 0.83
3. 209.5-212.7y 209.8-212.2y 210.3-211.7y 211.1y 0.92
4. 219.2-221.7y 219.8-220.9y 220.2y 0.69
Immediately four things are apparent. 1. There is no 230-year cycle, and the 180-year cycle is weak. 2. The 211-year (210-212 y) cycle is very strong with two accompanying components of 201 years (201-202 y) and 220 years (220-221 y) which are so apparent in historical data. The 201-year cycle seems to be near 17 Jovian years, the 211-year cycle near 19 average basic cycles and 220-221-year cycle is near being both 20 average cycles and 18.5 Jovian years. 3. Gleissberg cycle has a higher level correlation. 4. The "real" basic cycle of Sun is 10.3 years.
As expected, the Gleissberg cycle didn't show up. It had its highest correlations, that were only 0.160, in the years 77.1-77.2, which corresponds to 6.50-6.51 Jovian years. Both of the limits of the Gleissberg cycle get negative correlations. On the upper limit the correlation is at its lowest or -0.130...-0.137 from 82.6 to 83.6 giving credibility to the limit being 7 Jovian years.
Because the average change in length from one Gleissberg cycle to the next is 0.07 Jovian years, this means that there are 13 Jovian years (154.2 years) and not 14 (meaning one full Jovian year) before there is a change of direction in the Gleissberg lengths. The whole round is done in 26.1 Jovian years or in 28 cycles or in 310 years. So this is what was seen in Elatina laminations.
If the low limit would have been 6 Jovian years, the prohibition of the exact meeting of the minimum and the Jovian perihelion would have been violated (See introduction). But which is the egg and which is the hen?
And one guess: the weak 179-year supercycle may bind the 9.9-year cycle with 15 1/14 Jovian years. This may have repercussions to the hypothesis that every 15th cycle among some others have the length of one Jupiter year.
And lastly one prediction. Since the ongoing cycle is the 13th cycle since the last long cycle in 1784-1867 this cycle is should reverse the trend, which means a long cycle probably ending somewhere in 2009-2010.
5.3. Some studies showing a 200-year cyclicity
Zhukov and Muzalevskii (Soviet Astronomy 13, 1969) have run several autocorrelation analysis based on the Schove series of data. The longest of these analysis, from 214 BC to AD 1947, has the highest spectral density at 200.4 years. From the smaller, but more reliable data from AD 850 to AD 1947, they got a value of 201.5 years. The former is 16.89 and the latter 16.99 Jovian years. My 201.4 years equal 16.98 Jovian years.
Peter Brockwell and Richard Davis have in their book "Time Series: Theory and Methods", 1987, (page 357) derived an autoregressive minimum AIC model for the Wolf numbers between 1770 and 1869 and got a value for the WN (white noise) as being 202.6 years or 17.08 Jovian years.
Houtermans, Suess, and Munk (Effect of Industrial Fuel Combustion on the Carbon-14 Level, in "Radioactive Dating and Methods", IAEA, 1967) have found a 200-year cycle. Neftel, Oeschger, and Suess (Secular Non-random Variations of Cosmogenic Carbon-14, in "Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters" 56, 1981) have in their 6000-year long study found a 202-year cycle. H. E. Suess has in two articles in 1980 (Schove 1983) considered a 203-year cycle as the most significant supercycle in eight millennia of Bristlecone history. M. Stuiver in Pepin et al.: "The Ancient Sun", 1980, has found a radiocarbon cycle of 202 years since AD 700.
Because 17 Jovian years equal 201.65 Earthly years, it is a good candidate for a supercycle.
Cole has two values, 190 and 196 years, but these I inspect later. Dansgaard et. al (Climatic record revealed, in Turekian: "The Late Cenozoic Glacial Ages", 1971) have found a 175-180 year cycle in the Greenland ice-cap since AD 1200, and a 380-year cycle in earlier times.
I had also a weak correlation near 180 years. May it be that this supercycle oscillates between 180 and 220 years?
After having remarked that according to Eddy there is a 180-y interval between the Maunder and Sporer minima, Paul Damon remarks (Solar Induced Variations of Energetic Particles at one AU, in White: "The Solar Output and Its Variation", 1977): "Damon, Long, and Grey (J. Geophys. Res. 71, 1966) showed that the best sinusoidal fit to the delta data for the Little Ice Age had a period of 200 y... using the Blackman-Tukey Fourier analysis. For the time from 0 to 2000 y [BP], 182-y periodicity is observed."
In the above-mentioned Kiral article ("Autocorrelation and Solar Cycles") there are several peaks between 177 and 222 years, which is in good agreement with my observations. A most interesting result comes from the Yunnan group, China (Yunnan Observatory: A Recompilation of our Country's Records of Sunspots Through the Ages, in "Chinese Astronomy" 1, 1977), which states that there is a peak
periodicity between 165 and 210 years
. This study uses pre-telescopic sunspot sightings, of which the earliest is dated in May 28 BC.
The onset of the three great superminima in this millennium based on the 14C production according to Stuiver and Quay (Changes in atmosphere Carbon 14 attributed to a variable Sun, in Science 207, 1980) occurred in 1282 (medieval or Wolf), 1450 (Sporer), and 1645 (Maunder). From these we get intervals of 168 and 195 years.
In the Alps there has been retreats of the glaciers (Rothlisberger: 10000 Jahre Gletschergeschich te der Erde, 1986, page 76) between 1530 and 1565 and again between 1920 and 1960 with a short retreat between 1720 and 1730. The interval between the onsets is thus 190+200 years. The sudden advance of the glaciers began in 1680 and came to an end 195 years later in 1875. Between the three onsets in 1530 (retreat), in 1680 (advance), and in 1920 (retreat) elapsed 2 and 3 Gleissbergs, respectively.
We never gave up the ship! Divers claim they have found the 200-year-old wreck of the USS Revenge
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:00 PM on 7th January 2011
Her remains have lain on the ocean floor for nearly 200 years.
But now a team of divers armed with just a metal detector claim they have found the wreck of the USS Revenge, a 70ft schooner wrecked off Rhode Island in 1811.
As the 200th anniversary of the sinking approaches on Sunday, the divers claim they have found cannons, an anchor, and other bits of metal scattered across the ocean floor that they believe are all that remains of the famous ship.
1811 Atlantic hurricane season
I. A minor hurricane that struck Cuba continued onward to Charleston, South Carolina on September 10, causing many deaths, tornadoes, and crop damage as it moved across the state.
II. On October 4 a major hurricane hit near St. Augustine, Florida. Many homes were destroyed, and 35 people drowned in the sinking of a U.S. Gunboat.
III. On October 11 a hurricane strikes Pensacola, Florida and Fort Stoddard, Alabama.
IV. A hurricane moved through the western Caribbean west of Jamaica to Cuba between October 20 and October 25. On October 26 a Spanish ship is lost at Elliot Key from a hurricane.
"It looks like we're going to have more impact on the mainland of the U.S. coming up this year compared to last year," Pastelok said. "We had a lot of storms last year, but not a lot of impact [on the U.S.]."
As with most Atlantic hurricane seasons, the areas where storms are most likely to make landfall shift as the season progresses.
This year, the early season threat area will be the western Gulf of Mexico and the southern portion of the Caribbean. Within this zone, the higher concern for landfalls will be along the Texas and Louisiana coastlines.
As for the mid-to-late season zones, the eastern Gulf and Caribbean will be the focus. The higher concern areas will be the Florida Peninsula to the Carolinas.
"What we see is there is a clustering of storm impacts over the southeastern US, and that's the reason why we earmarked this as a concern area," said Kottlowski.
Another mid-to-late season concern for landfalls will be northern New England and the Canadian Maritimes.
"We feel that this season, there will be a higher potential for impacts across the southern part of the Basin into the Gulf of Mexico during the first part of the season," Pastelok stated. "This higher potential for impacts shift farther north into the southeast U.S. during the latter half of the season."
Hurricane season officially begins June 1 and ends Nov. 30.
Originally posted by redbarron626
Hey thanks for fixing the links! Great stuff btw. I Think your ideas are actually closer to reality than fiction! I hope i didn't come off sounding like a debunker or even worse a troll, I just wanted to say that in 93 there were some rumors about EQ's and flooding that scared a lot of folks. The sand spouts that happen regularly are sometimes considered a warning sign for EQ activity. They are actually pretty cool if you get to see one, its like a geyser made of sandy wet goo that spews as much at 20 feet in the air.
After reading all your info, it seems that you may be onto something that could become a SOMETHING! Keep up the good work.
Originally posted by ren1999
We had a noticeable earthquake last night at 3:30 in Tokyo. About 30 seconds of light swaying.
Time, More Time, And Still More Time
We've just learned how the river cut its gorge, but how long did it take? Geologists don't know, and their estimates vary widely from 3 million years to 320 million years.
In any event, it took a long time to cut this gorge, and the name "New River" is far from right. In fact, the New may be very old, perhaps one of the oldest river systems in the world. We do know that this part of New River follows the same course followed by part of the ancient Teays River and is simply a new name for part of the Teays River system.
The ancestral Teays River had an enormous effect on interior America. With its tributaries, it helped carve the landscape of parts of present-day North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Teays ceased to exist in its western reaches with the coming of the Ice Age. At least four times lobes of the continental glacier covered parts of the Teays River, bringing to this region an arctic climate with mammoths, wooly rhinocerous, caribou, and musk oxen roving in front of the glacial ice sheets.
One of these glacial advances dammed the river with ice and debris at about present-day Cillicothe, Ohio, creating a large lake that backed up to the vicinity of Gauley Bridge. This caused the Teays to seek a new course skirting the edge of the glacier. The new course was and still is the Ohio River.
Water Treatment and Distribution
Peru Operations - Serves approximately 4,812 customers, generally within the corporation boundaries of the City of Peru. Raw water is obtained from the Teays River Aquifer by 4 wells having a maximum capacity of 9.5 million gallons per day. The treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 4 million gallons per day. The Peru Operations has a total of 3.35 million gallons of treated water storage capacity. The Peru Water Operations employs 11 persons
Grissom Aeroplex Operations - Serves approximately 1,016 customers within the boundaries of the former Grissom Air Force Base. Raw water is obtained from three wells having a maximum capacity of 3 million gallons per day. The water treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 2 million gallons per day. The Grissom Aeroplex Operations has a total of 2.1 million gallons of treated water storage capacity.