Originally posted by westcoast
reply to post by ButterCookie
If this is Volcanic...than every known volcanic threat in the US is quite well monitored, and if pointed in the right direction there are enough people on here that know what they're doing that we could figure it out.
SO...give us more than a brief, cryptic email exchange. If YOU (original OP) really want to warn people....you need to tell us at least WHERE so we can confirm activity and threat level. What you provided will NOT save lives, only some discussion.
Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
Let's dig in to this and see if we can shake anything out.
...The computer model was generated under NASA's QuakeSim project, a computational framework for modeling and understanding earthquake and tectonic processes. QuakeSim focuses on deformation of Earth's crust, which can be measured using airborne and spaceborne technologies. The models and data can be used to better understand earthquake hazard, stress transfer between faults, and ground disturbance following earthquakes.
QuakeSim, a collaboration of JPL-Caltech, USC, UC Davis, UC Irvine, Indiana University, and NASA Ames, is sponsored by NASA's Advanced Information Systems Technology Program through the Earth Science Technology Office.
So we know for a fact that JPL works with quite a few groups studying earthquakes.
We are forming a community-led InSAR Working Group dedicated to the advancement of radar remote sensing research. The potential of a robust InSAR observational capability has generated strong interest amongst the research and applications communities. The role of InSAR spans a broad spectrum of end uses including crustal deformation science related to earthquakes, volcanoes, hydrologic processes, ice sheet and glacier variability, vegetation structure, and disaster management. Long-term access to InSAR data will greatly advance our understanding of how these basic processes affect life on Earth. Consequently, the US scientific community should devise a long-term strategy for US InSAR activities, including the funding of dedicated US InSAR satellites, access to foreign SAR data, and continued education and advocacy for InSAR science.
More JPL stuff of interest
This report summarizes the major ﬁndings of a symposium attended by 260 scientists and engineers in an effort to guide U.S. efforts in Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), a critical tool for studying dynamic changes of the Earth’s surface and natural hazards associated with these changes. InSAR observations provide critical and otherwise unavailable data enabling comprehensive, global measurements to better understand and predict changes in the Earth system. The InSAR Workshop was funded jointly by NASA’s Earth Science program, the Geosciences Directorate of the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey. We hope that these and other agencies heed the call for a coordinated InSAR program to address these important research questions
From a report dated 2004
Natural hazards. SAR interferometry has demonstrated valuable information for monitoring and predicting or forecasting a variety of hazards, from air, water, and earth. Large-scale hazards generated in the Earth include earthquakes and volcanic eruptions; each is driven by tectonic forces within the Earth’s crust. Observation of deformation from subsurface ﬂow of magma and of the accumulation of strain within the crust is needed to be able to understand these great forces of nature. More localized, but often intense, hazards include landslides, mud ﬂows, and land subsidence or collapse due to natural or human removal of subsurface material or ﬂuids and permafrost melting. Flooding is the most damaging hazard in most areas, from rainfall, snow, and ice melting, and natural or human-made dam collapse. In coastal regions, hurricanes, intense local wind events, shore erosion, and oil spills are major hazards. Finally, ﬁre in forests and other vegetation is a major hazard in many areas. For each of these hazards, InSAR has proven a help in assessing damage after the events and evaluating the risk of future events by understanding and monitoring the processes involved
Lessons learned included the challenge of complete openness during the intense media
coverage of the Brady-Spence prediction, that of high-level political interest in the review
of Keilis-Borok's M8 prediction algorithm, the risk of delay in the Browning case
(holding a press conference only after it already had too much momentum). He noted that
NEPEC was disbanded in the mid-1990s not for lack of interest in prediction science but
due to the internal fiscal challenges of the Survey and political friction over the
committee's work. Wesson also noted that NEPEC was the only external advisory
committee for the USGS earthquake program, thus was often tasked with providing
overall program guidance, a role currently held by the SESAC
Originally posted by CLPrime
If they're talking about the potential for a magnitude 8 earthquake at, say, New Madrid, and their program is predicting such an event, then I can certainly understand their lack of both preparedness and protocol for dealing with such a situation. There's no precedence on how to handle any sort of serious earthquake prediction. Earthquakes have always been dealt with after the fact.