It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quake Watch 2012

page: 113
159
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
These recent earthquakes are not exactly normal. Even when there were periods of time during the 1950's that had more earthquakes, we're not talking years here at the moment, we're talking about a matter of weeks. (besides, there was lots of underground nuke testing during that period- only god knows) These quakes have not happen over the whole year. Records are pretty good for the large earthquakes over the last century. Find me a month (or is it really two weeks?) with this many large quakes on a global level. No fair using single quake.
Chile 1960. I'm not talking about total energy. We're talking activity and scope.

Are these earthquakes natural? Probably.

If nothing else, I am now confindent that earthquakes around the world are related and there is a global process.
Earthquakes are not always local.

And earthquakes cluster. They also are regular. The ones in British Columbia run on a precise 14 month schedule. (my mom's leaving for the coast this morning-i'll be holding my breath the whole time. last night I was giving her tips. in the event of a earthquake and tsunami, she thought the best place to go was the basement. i explain to her that she was confused with tornadoes. i told her to go up.)

If we were to stop back and look at this as if we were looking at Yellowstone, we would conclude what we are seeing is a swarm.

The earth is experiencing a swarm of earthquakes.
Just like Oklahoma
(maybe the earth expanded!?shh...shut up)

Also, I'm very glad South America chimed in. It comforts me somehow.
Had to edit. I wrote two weeks, it's been a mere eight or nine days give or take.
edit on 17-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ericblair4891
 


The 14-month "earthquakes" have indeed been regular, but those are also very low energy (no one can feel them and the amount of stress released is small). Earthquakes other place have generally been much less regular and variable in their details.

While distant triggering from strong shaking is sometimes observed, the reason that most seismologists have not bought into the earthquake storm idea is that the small earthquakes, say M7 to 8, do not show the clustering in the last decade that has been inferred for the M8.5+ events.

The spurt of activity since the M8.6 near Sumatra, on the other hand, has not yet been analyzed carefully to see how certain we can be that it is not a random occurrence. I'd guess within a few weeks, there will be more definitive results on the likelihood that the M8.6 set off what would be unprecedented moderate activity globally.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnVidale
 


I should add that the unique feature of the M8.6 earthquake is that most of the energy came out within 50 seconds. In contrast, earthquakes of that magnitude generally take a more leisurely 100-500s to occur. So it might have been a sharper jolt than usual, perhaps from a fresh fault breakage rather than the usual re-rupture of a fault that had previously broken many times.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreamfox1

Originally posted by berkeleygal
reply to post by wiser3
 


I dunno, sometimes I post stuff here just for the archives.

I do know those two 8's in Indonesia were not normal.


Two 8's indeed was not normal


Define 'normal'.

It would appear that area has experienced these sorts of clusters in the past, as well, when looked at in terms of millenia.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaceJockey1
 



Say 2010 to April 17th and 2011 to April 17th.


Sorry, I was busy.

That would be pointless as a graph as the 2818 PJ of Japan swamps the whole lot. That one single event in 2011 was the same amount of energy - more actually, that the complete Mag 5 + energy for 2007 + 2008 + 2009 + 2010 + 2011(excluding the single quake)

Since I already had 2011/2012 will that do?





edit on 17/4/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ericblair4891
 


Just adding the ANSS catalogue data to take this through to 2012

Just purely as a matter of interest the following months are ones where there were 20 or more Mag 6 or greater
ETA: Sorry I should qualify that is from the Centennial so only goes to 2002.




The lack of earlier months is because of reporting constraints. We don't have the data.

So what about months where there were 5 or more Mag 7 plus quakes





And finally just for good measure months where there were 2 or more Mag 8 +




No I don't think this current activity is particularly out of the normal range or even as John put it unprecedented moderate activity
love that one. A bit like "this activity is perfectly normally out of the ordinary!"


edit on 17/4/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Saying everything is normal will not generate page views.

Try and be more hysterical.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Saying everything is normal will not generate page views.

Try and be more hysterical.


You are right, I should be much more hysterical. Trouble is it just is not the nature of the beast. I did find someone who is much better at it than me. This was him when told that there were several earthquakes over Mag 6 in the last 2 weeks.



Once he understood that this was unprecedented moderate activity he assumed a position and would not speak any more.




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I won't argue statisitics. And the only years you have two 8's in the same month are 1905, 1960, and 1971. When looking at the list of 7's, many of them must be are aftershocks being in the same month as the main quakes. I even looked for single 8's to see if the match up with the other years with multiple 7's and didn't find much.

But what I did find out about the years 1905 and 1971 interested me very much.

1905 had two 8's and they were mid-continental 8's in Mongolia. Earlier that year, there was another large earthquake in India. So, these quakes would seem to a cluster of mid-continental quakes and may be related.

1971 also was interest because the quakes were doublets.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

I lied, there's another interesting thing I found as I've been wondering about the big quakes of the 20th Century.

1906 is crazy. Firstly, January 31 boom 8.8M , wow, almost a 9M, Columbia/Equador. Less than 3 months later, after a few rainy weeks, wham, San Fransico 7.8 M, April 18. Four months later, August 17, right up the spine of North America, all the way to Alaska, crack. 8.35M at the end of the Aluetian Island chain. And get this,

Get this... Half an hour later, all the way down in Chile, Blamo, you get an 8.2M. Well, that must be another year with two eights within a month.

Woah. Now there's a cluster.

Now that idea of the whole west coast unzipping all at once doesn't sound so goofy. In 1906, you have four 8+M up and down the Americas.
Had to edit. That is not correct. There were not four 8M+ earthquakes in the Americas, there were four large earthquakes three of them +8.

Another interesting earthquake sequence is 1932 Jalisco, Mexico because there's been renewed activity in the area.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am wrong again. 1954 jumps out at me. Four significant earthquakes in Nevada. Hmmmm.

And I understand what a moderate earthquake is. That's not the issue. I watch Japan last year and watched the rest of the global and there was nothing unusal. I was even looking for stuff. What is unusal here is the sequencing. You can forget the nothing. Everyone forgets the nothing. Before the large, historic quakes, there was a lull everywhere and it was pronounced. It would be on the lowest level of normal. Then bing-bang, the whole pinball machine lights up within very short time-frame. The quiet extended into last year. Quiet winter. As Puterman's charts show there was an uptick starting in March. I was being to consider watching paint dry things had been so slow. There's one thing for sure. It hasn't been a dull time to talk about, and observe, earthquakes.

edit on 17-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Just so way down under isn't left off the lists


6.2 east of the south sandwich islands 2012-04-17 19:03:55 59.099°S 16.693°W 1.0


Source
edit on 17-4-2012 by Anmarie96 because: :-)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Anmarie96
 


Ya beat me!!



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ericblair4891
 



1906 is crazy. Firstly, January 31 boom 8.8M , wow, almost a 9M, Columbia/Equador. Less than 3 months later, after a few rainy weeks, wham, San Fransico 7.8 M, April 18. Four months later, August 17, right up the spine of North America, all the way to Alaska, crack. 8.35M at the end of the Aluetian Island chain. And get this,

Get this... Half an hour later, all the way down in Chile, Blamo, you get an 8.2M. Well, that must be another year with two eights within a month.


The Centennial says


1906-01-31T15:36:00.000Z 1 -81.5 8.8 M Ecuador/Colombia
1906-08-17T00:40:00.000Z -33 -72 8.2 M Valparaiso Chile
1906-09-14T16:04:18.000Z -7 149 8 Mw New Britain


The Aleutians is in as a Mag 7.8 Mw

There was a 7.7 in Japan as well


1906-01-21T13:49:35.000Z 34 137 7.7 mB Japan - Daini Atsumi Knoll
1906-01-31T15:36:00.000Z 1 -81.5 8.8 M Ecuador/Colombia
1906-04-18T13:12:00.000Z 38 -123 7.8 M San Francisco California
1906-08-17T00:10:42.000Z 51 179 7.8 Mw Aleutian Islands
1906-08-17T00:40:00.000Z -33 -72 8.2 M Valparaiso Chile
1906-09-14T16:04:18.000Z -7 149 8 Mw New Britain
1906-09-28T15:24:54.000Z -2 -79 7.5 mB



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Well blame these guys...

www.earth.northwestern.edu...

cause they say the Alaskan quake was bigger than the Chilean. they may have said the Alaskan one may have triggered the Chilean quake. i don't know- i didn't finish the conclusion cause i was shaking cause i was triggered by the triggering idea of these large quakes happening within 30 seconds of each other.No. 30 MINUTES . The siesmograms must have been a mess.

i know triggers. i'm getting fat. i just quit smoking. my lizard brain knows triggers and the reward center must be lighting up everytime i'm eating. at least i'm not in rage anymore. i'm hungry

Alaska triggered Chile. Here's another example of interaction over a very long distance.
Earthquakes are not always local.

Damn it. I went back and read it.
I blame the tides. you know that.
the titanic was sunk by the moon and global warming
i'm not reading anymore i'm going to watch the daily show and colbert.
edit on 17-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Magnitude ML 4.5
Region WESTERN TURKEY
Date time 2012-04-17 20:45:17.0 UTC
Location 39.09 N ; 29.14 E
Depth 7 km
Distances 124 km S Bursa (pop 1,412,701 ; local time 23:45:17.0 2012-04-17)
51 km NW Usak (pop 152,862 ; local time 23:45:17.0 2012-04-17)
15 km E Simav (pop 34,909 ; local time 23:45:17.0 2012-04-17)
10 km NW Saphane (pop 5,085 ; local time 23:45:17.0 2012-04-17)


Source parameters provided by another agency
EMSC

Rainbows
jane



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ericblair4891
 


Nice document, not. Sorry but by the time I got to the end of the third page of Okal quoting his own papers as authoritative sources and his continual nosism (pluralis majestatis), not to mention the huge number of 'ifs' 'buts' and 'maybes' and the innate climate-scientist style ability to utilise data even though it is very uncertain, I really could not be bothered with it any longer. Quite why he thinks, that with his set of unfounded and very loose data, he knows better than Kanamori I don't know but I objected to the offhand dismissal of Kanamori.

Well actually, I did read to the end and it was more of the same. In a nutshell he could not explain the fact that the Chilean quake produced a much larger tsunami; that his calculations could not provide the observed wave heights; nor could he explain the lift which according to him should not be there, yet just wafts all this away with a wave of the Royal hand.

Cut into squares his paper might be quite useful.


edit on 17/4/2012 by PuterMan because: The editor in chief made some observations


 


I meant to add a comment on this.


the titanic was sunk by the moon and global warming


No, the Titanic was sunk by a combination of stupidity, pride and arrogance. The iceberg was merely the instrument.


edit on 17/4/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Just wanted to thank you for taking the time to reply to my request for data, and for your subsequent enlightening posts pointing out that recent quakes aren't that abnormal



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


Think it will be a quite year...there are some cycles to this. I always wondered if there are more detectors today than in the past that could acount for more hits.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by muzzy
 


Think it will be a quite year...there are some cycles to this. I always wondered if there are more detectors today than in the past that could acount for more hits.

I don't see any cycles for the 100 years

Yes more official recorders for sure, but data does go back to 314, its hard to know, just looking at Japan Historic Earthquakes (pdf) that goes back aways, the first entry is the year 679, no month or day, but has co-ords 33.5,130.5, a Mag 6.7,
then year 684/11/29 a mag 8.4 at 32.5,134. does this mean there were none in between?
many years have two events, and down to Mag 6.2, but you would think there would be more. Does this mean they missed recording them? or back in 684 there was just the one Mag 8.4 quake for all of Japan, I doubt it.

edit on 18-4-2012 by muzzy because: add link to pdf



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
bit of disturbance off Cape Kidnappers, NZ

Mag, Ref, Lat, Long, Date/Time UTC, Depth ,Location, Felt?
3.197, 3691092, -39.74583, 177.24254, 2012/4/16 10:39:20, 28, os E of Ocean Beach, Yes
3.188, 3691642, -39.77166, 177.30505, 2012/4/17 11:59:46, 20, os E of Ocean Beach, No
3.201, 3691646, -39.7777, 177.32405, 2012/4/17 12:11:59, 17, os E of Ocean Beach, No
3.88, 3691669, -39.77153, 177.30057, 2012/4/17 13:20:57, 22, os E of Ocean Beach, Yes
3.82, 3691672, -39.75639, 177.25354, 2012/4/17 13:26:20, 29, os E of Ocean Beach, Yes
3.191, 3691728, -39.73358, 177.23978, 2012/4/17 15:44:56, 31, os E of Ocean Beach, No

no big deal, total of 21.794 tonnes of TNT energy, about a 4.1
the 3 felt ones are on Geonet Recent Quakes as E of Havelock North, nearest big town
edit on 18-4-2012 by muzzy because: too much text per line to look neat, dropped the TTNT

edit on 18-4-2012 by muzzy because: spelling



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I mentioned this on another thread, but thought I'd add it here.

World Earthquakes

Southeastern Iran - 5.2

Or maybe a test of some kind??




top topics



 
159
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join