Quake Watch 2012

Originally posted by ericblair4891
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

Love your signature. I'm the craziest of them all. I sometimes think ATS is a CIA experiment to see if a "million monkeys" can become an organic computer. A digital computer __________, nor truely random thoughts. I digress. en.wikipedia.org...

Okie is a leftover so it's kinda normal. The Missouri quakes are quite normal.

But everything else isn't. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. Nothing has been normal in quite a while. Lull, then boom, then sorta normal- but not really- now today is goofy. Forget about the Tonga, that's normal.

I can't even put my finger on it. I was quite content when things appeared to become routine.
So, I guess if I can't quantify it, I should just shut up.

Or I'll try. Shutting up isn't my strong suit. There's clusters in Europe and Asia and South America.
www.insidescience.org...


www.theintelligencer.net...

edit on 28-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)

lol its ok to me this activity is to be expected we are in the 10 days befoer perigee nd what do we see a rise in medium quakes soon I expect a larger quake who's to say where just gotta keep an eye out on the activity.

reply to post by muzzy


I had a bunch of stuff typed in to answer you basically saying mb is pretty useless at that level but I hit the wrong button and lost it all and can't be bothered to find it again.

SNZO does NOT look impressive in BUD SNZO.IU.00.BHZ.2012.119

I would be careful of interpreting SNZO too accurately. We have no idea what those filters do other than seem to conjure up squiggles that are almost impossible to see else where. In fact that applies to all of the LISS recorders. I suppose the only saving grace is that they are probably consistent.

Just look at your own site and how much bigger the 6.6 in Papua appears yet you are querying this one? Papua is about 1000 miles further away. Obviously depth has some effect.

reply to post by -W1LL


Do we see a rise in medium quakes? Where do we see that?

Up until today's quake worldwide cumulative energy daily has been dropping.



The daily count of numbers has also been dropping



In fact the 'calm before the bigger quake theory' seems to be operative and thus until a few days have elapsed from today you are not going to see any trend. I certainly do not see the numbers going up.

Agreed these are 4.5+ and you may have been referring to lower values. but anything lower is not particularly relevant I feel.

Is this where the meteorite hit? I have been really busy and just noticed this. Noticed the white square.

Magnitude
? (uncertain or not yet determined)
Date-Time
Sunday, April 22, 2012 at 14:53:30 UTC
Sunday, April 22, 2012 at 07:53:30 AM at epicenter
Location
38.860°N, 120.000°W
Depth
0 km (~0 mile) set by location program
Region
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Distances
8 km (5 miles) S (190°) from South Lake Tahoe, CA
13 km (8 miles) SSW (201°) from Stateline, NV
15 km (9 miles) SW (214°) from Kingsbury, NV
132 km (82 miles) ENE (75°) from Sacramento, CA
Location Uncertainty
Error estimate not available
Parameters
Nph=0, Dmin=0 km, Rmss=0 sec, Gp= 0,
M-type=(unknown type), Version=1
Source
U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center:
World Data Center for Seismology, Denver
Event ID
us2012_005

reply to post by berkeleygal


Yup, sure is. Take a look at the map for the event. Says on it

i was referring to the recent I think yesterday mag 6 quakes that were popping up. you are correct when looking at quake histories and energy but these smaller ones could be leading up to something in cali.

im just going off of observation around the world during this time frame. not really scientific i admit im much to busy to stay focused into my theory this month will shed more light or dark on it i think.

reply to post by PuterMan


wow, it sure does!

Not too often you see that on there, let me rephrase that, never do you see that!

crazy

never mind. I figured it out. thx

reply to post by -W1LL

im just going off of observation around the world during this time frame. not really scientific i admit im much to busy to stay focused into my theory this month will shed more light or dark on it i think.

No, there is never enough time and always too much to do! Another lifetime would be useful i kind of think i wasted the first one.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I can only suggest punching the coordinates into Google Earth, or perhaps Google Maps - yes of course, here is the link from USGS for the event

Google Maps location for us2012_005

That should take you in closer.

USGS event page

I've been following this guy for some time. I respect the guy, he's fairly unbiased, but figured I'd post this here to get a good warmed up response.

To quote a part: "These are the significant earthquakes over the past 12 years, and all except one or two, can be correlated with geomagetic space weather, at the time."

Thoughts? He provides links but I don't have the time to look over it all just yet.

While I do not blame earthquakes on geomagnetic disturbances and solar weather solely, I have a feeling that geomagnetic conditions could possibly amplify the process in which things work.

reply to post by murkraz


I have listened to the the video and downloaded what I can but one of the documents is paywalled Just what the hell is the point of linking to a paywalled document especially on You-Tube?

Very very rapid synopsis of the video - yes many of the points I would agree. Despite what TA thinks I agree that weather pressure does affect the plates. There is nothing new in the fact that planetary conjunctions may drive changes in seismicity, or in deed in climate. I do not think it is any coincidence that climate change and changes in seismicity appear to occur on the same cycle mainly driven by the Grand Conjunctions and NOT dioxycarbohydrate, but the factors affecting the calculations are many and there are other cycles that overlay and all of these have an effect.

The 1930s were warmer, the seventies were colder, the noughties were warmer and now we move down towards the thirties when it will be colder and then the sixties when it will be warmer again. The peaks of seismicity also run to the same or it seems a very close pattern and as I have said countless times now will also be on the decrease until the thirties and back up again around the sixties. I have every intention of being around to see that even if I will be 120! (All my life that has been my target - and as an aside here is a weird thing. When I found my natural family a few year ago my oldest half sister born around the same time as me [different mothers] also has had exactly the same target all her life. Not 100 or 110 but 120 just like me.)

I certainly would not throw the idea out, I think there is much to be recommended, but I also think it is a very long way off being an acceptable theory. The problem is that at this stage of hypothesis mainstream geology spends way too much energy try to destroy 'rogue' theories instead of embracing them, examining them, discussing them and then either accepting or rejecting them after they have been properly dissected. Science does not have a wide open mind these days.

Of course this is just a symptom of tribalism to which we are all bound, despite the fact that some wallys seem to think that we can be global citizens under a global government. I like to see Indian culture or Chinese culture or Iranian culture or Zulu culture etc and the ever present drive to amalgamate is removing the rich tapestry and replacing it with a bland sameness. That attitude does not have a place in the world or in science. We should celebrate the differences

When I get a minute I shall study his PDF and see if I can find that paper somewhere else.

The only unfortunate part of the video was the end. The reference to a time of transition? Meaning what? If he is referring to vibrations and moving on to a higher plane he can forget it. There is no evidence for this mainly because as far as I can see the basis for the hypothesis is the frequency of the planet, which is the Schumann resonance (and there are several frequencies or harmonics) to which we are all attuned in some way possibly through evolution, and SR may also have a connection to the measurement of seismicity. This is caused by the surface/ionosphere distance and whilst it too has fluctuations there is no evidence to suggest a major change - until they start messing about with it by exploding bombs and heating it up perhaps.

On the day that science realises that what they do affects all of us we will have a better world. Until that time the population is forced to suffer the results of their madness.

Was going to post earlier that Japan seemed a bit quiet today, but decided to watch a movie instead...

Earthquake Details

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 5.8
Date-Time

Sunday, April 29, 2012 at 10:28:51 UTC
Sunday, April 29, 2012 at 07:28:51 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 35.601°N, 140.483°E
Depth 39.9 km (24.8 miles)
Region NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
Distances 70 km (43 miles) E of TOKYO, Japan
81 km (50 miles) E of Yokohama, Honshu, Japan
86 km (53 miles) S of Mito, Honshu, Japan
121 km (75 miles) SSE of Utsunomiya, Honshu, Japan
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 12.9 km (8.0 miles); depth +/- 6 km (3.7 miles)
Parameters NST=553, Nph=574, Dmin=230.4 km, Rmss=0.81 sec, Gp= 14°,
M-type=teleseismic moment magnitude (Mw), Version=B
Source

Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID usc0009ek2

SOURCE

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

 

I would be careful of interpreting SNZO too accurately. We have no idea what those filters do other than seem to conjure up squiggles that are almost impossible to see else where. In fact that applies to all of the LISS recorders. I suppose the only saving grace is that they are probably consistent.
Just look at your own site and how much bigger the 6.6 in Papua appears yet you are querying this one? Papua is about 1000 miles further away. Obviously depth has some effect.

Thats why I spent most of the weekend adding more graphs I had saved and marking them up, the more I have the easier it is to recognize a particular trace.when it comes on.
I don't have anything in mind as an end result other than to be able to see at a glance what is happening around me.
LISS is the only system tat I can find that has all the quake traces on the one graph. BUD graphs are not so clear.
Consistency is all I'm looking for, whether its in these graphs or on the USGS picks as to magnitude.As far as magnitude estimates RAS and Geofon seem to be more reliable.

Depth has everything to do with the size of the traces, from looking at the graphs I have so far. There are many low 5's and high 4's from just up the other end of the Coleville Ridge that never appear on SNZO, these are the "South of Fiji" or "Fiji Island" ones you see quite quite regularly, with depths like 247, 623, 527 & 533 km ( just some samples off 3 pages of Geofon). Yet you see regular traces of the same size quakes from Vanuatu a thousand km further away on SNZO?, all because the depths are usually shallower at Vanuatu.

Perhaps a better comparison to the Tonga quake of 28.04.2012 would be the E of New Guinea 6.8 on 17.04.2012 at 207km depth. The length of that signal is longer for sure, due to the distance, but its about the same peak height.
On some of the graphs ( like the one I linked to for Tonga), I have marked the depth on some traces, this is because looking at them you think there is no way that is a 6.2?, but that is because it was quite deep

How many times have I said here that on a particular quake that "USGS are too big" (or "too small") based on what is on LISS SNZO? Perhaps if they looked at there own graphs from another department from time to time they may become more reliable.

With the changes at USGS in April, Geofon has now become the easiest site to view lists up to and beyond 30 days. Too bad they stopped posting Phase Data a few months back.

On the Magnitude thing
I'm doing an Excel file at the moment on USGS Mw comparisons to the other magnitude types to see if there is any way to figure out where they get the Mw numbers from. So far with 30 days done, there is no consistency whatsoever, it looks like they just make up the Mw numbers out of thin air. I'm sure thats not the case, with the CMT and BWMT calculations being based on the geology of the exact spot of the event rather than a whole area.




BTW Puterman, thanks for saving all those details of Mag6+ quakes off USGS on your QVS, especially the phase data, that is handy for doing tables like this.


ETA: I find the LISS SNZO graphs really helpful in checking who is correct. On todays current graph we have two quakes off Honshu. According to the graph the 2nd one was smaller.
According to USGS they were the same size.

5.8, 2012/04/29 10:28:52, 35.601, 140.483, 39.9, NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.8, 2012/04/29 15:02:18, 39.729, 142.074, 10.0, NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

According to Geofon they were different sizes

5.8, 2012-04-29 10:28:47, 35.63°N, 140.53°E, 10, Near East Coast of Honshu, Japan
5.3, 2012-04-29 15:02:19, 39.85°N, 142.19°E, 10, Near East Coast of Honshu, Japan

Geofon are still automatic readings and have the same depth, USGS have a 30km depth difference, but I don't think that would account for the differing sized traces on the graph.
I think USGS have got it wrong

reply to post by muzzy


Yes I understand where you are coming from on LISS.

I think USGS have got it wrong

No, surely not, my goodness it can't be! Now there is a surprise. They are just getting worse and worse it seems.

BTW Puterman, thanks for saving all those details of Mag6+ quakes off USGS on your QVS, especially the phase data, that is handy for doing tables like this.

As long as someone finds it useful it is worth doing. Sorry it does not go back very far.
Thanks

Reference Number 3697420
Universal Time April 28 2012 at 10:11
NZ Standard Time Saturday, April 28 2012 at 10:11 pm
Latitude, Longitude 33.96°S, 178.84°E
Focal Depth 310 km
Moment magnitude 5.3
Region NE of New Zealand
Location
360 km south-west of L'Esperance Rock
410 km north of Te Araroa
460 km north-east of Whangarei
490 km north-east of Auckland

www.geonet.org.nz...

Can't immediately see it on LISS SNZO (because of the depth?) will have to check the arrival times later, have to go to work (Monday here)



hasn't made the Geonet magma list yet

reply to post by murkraz


Further to the post about Solar etc and earthquakes I thought I would try and add some information for each earthquake of Mag 6+ from this point forward.

I am not commenting on it, just providing. I have just finished (I think) the data for the Tonga earthquake

There will be a link on the blog page for each earthquake pointing to this information as well. It will be located in the table of links immediately below the main detail.

Sample for Tonga

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by murkraz

 

Further to the post about Solar etc and earthquakes I thought I would try and add some information for each earthquake of Mag 6+ from this point forward.

I am not commenting on it, just providing. I have just finished (I think) the data for the Tonga earthquake

There will be a link on the blog page for each earthquake pointing to this information as well. It will be located in the table of links immediately below the main detail.

Sample for Tonga

I have QVS under my bookmarks. I appreciate that earthquake analysis for the Tonga quake.

Brings more of an awareness to the state of the Earth at the time, and the correlation (if any) with the conjunction of the planetary bodies around that time.

I managed to give your other reply a thorough read and I agree with the points you've made. As I see it, there are indeed many layers, many cycles within the Earth, with the magnetics and with the movement of the crust. Sometimes there is a slight coincidence in the activity of the Sun with the timing of some larger earthquakes, but there have also been strong solar storms and KP spikes that have had no affect whatsoever on the earthquake scene whilst people had predictions relying on there being activity. Not everything is to be so clear.

The problem nowadays is that people are trying to correlate everything with, well, everything. Youtube, to sites like this website like this that attempt to create a vast juxtaposition between theories of the Earth, mass control and doom and gloom all in the one package.

The correlation of the full Moon has interested me, but I've had no time in really putting the Moon to the grindstone with regards to finding any correlations, so further appreciation for that page you have going with quake analysis.

I do like rogue theories every now and then, and I like to absorb all of it just to have it in my arsenal of thought. I would like to see more open mindedness with the inclusion of the significance of our own planetary bodies. I've always looked at these behemoths and gems, like Jupiter and Venus as perhaps having a deeper meaning, design, within their trajectory, alignments, and what occurs here, maybe.

Haven't looked at that PDF file just yet.
 

reply to post by murkraz


Murkraz, please be sure to watch the period around the 14th to the 16th of May, for any increase in larger earthquakes (7+), as based on planetary alignments, this period may give more credence to the possible relationship between the two.

It was what I based my previous prediction that there could be a larger earthquake(s) of 7+ around the 11th of April.

I also predicted around the 16th of April that I anticipated that between the 16th of April until the 14th to 16th of May, I didn't expect we'd see anything larger than a 6+ < 7 mag quakes. So far (2 weeks later) this has been the case.

Just over two more weeks to go to see if I'm right or not.

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by murkraz

 

Murkraz, please be sure to watch the period around the 14th to the 16th of May, for any increase in larger earthquakes (7+), as based on planetary alignments, this period may give more credence to the possible relationship between the two.

It was what I based my previous prediction that there could be a larger earthquake(s) of 7+ around the 11th of April.

I also predicted around the 16th of April that I anticipated that between the 16th of April until the 14th to 16th of May, I didn't expect we'd see anything larger than a 6+ < 7 mag quakes. So far (2 weeks later) this has been the case.

Just over two more weeks to go to see if I'm right or not.

Will do. I have a feeling about this month on some level. Not really anything pertaining to seismic activity, but you never know. My eyes are open for the 7th to 11th, but only because they always attract But will note the 14-16th and look at the alignments.

Things do seem to be somewhat slowing down once again, which is good.

I always see May as the peak in the season of revival. Still no sign of the leaves here, but managed to catch a fly the other day when it was 20C. Now there's a layer of snow on the ground once more at -1C. I need to move --so I can stop boring forums with my weather woes.