Quake Watch 2012

Magnitude 6.1 - Luzon. Philippines

Location in Google Maps

• Date-Time: Saturday, June 16, 2012 @ 22:18:48 UTC
  
• Earthquake location: 15.574°N, 119.609°E,
  
• Earthquake depth: 35.3 km
  
• Distances:
  34km (21mi) WSW of Bolitoc, Philippines
  36km (22mi) W of Masinloc, Philippines
  38km (23mi) WSW of Santa Cruz, Philippines
  44km (27mi) WNW of Amungan, Philippines
  182km (113mi) NW of Manila, Philippines
  
• Event ID: usb000ahkr
  

Derived from Event Data Source: USGS
Powered by QVSData

EMSC has it as follows

Magnitude mb 6.0
Region LUZON, PHILIPPINES
Date time 2012-06-16 22:18:51.0 UTC
Location 15.59 N ; 119.68 E
Depth 60 km
Distances 176 km NW Manila (pop 10,444,527 ; local time 06:18:51.1 2012-06-17)
97 km W Tarlac (pop 183,930 ; local time 06:18:51.1 2012-06-17)
29 km W Masinloc (pop 28,041 ; local time 06:18:51.1 2012-06-17)
26 km W Bani (pop 3,066 ; local time 06:18:51.1 2012-06-17)


Source parameters not yet reviewed by a seismologist

Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by angelchemuel


And USGS has a tensor at 5.8 Mw

earthquake.usgs.gov...

F-E Region: Luzon, Philippines
Time: 2012-06-16 22:18:45.8 UTC
Magnitude: 6.1
Epicenter: 119.63°E 15.74°N
Depth: 10 km
Status: A - automatic
GFZ

date= 16-Jun-2012 22:18:46.7
lat= 15.71 lon= 119.66
depth= 33km
mb: 6.3/28
RAS

17 Jun 2012 - 06:18 AM (local)
15.61, 119.46
12 km
52 km S 88° W of Candelaria (Zambales)
Magnitude: Ms 6.0
Reported Intensities :
Intensity IV- Bolinao, Pangasinan; Makati City;
Intensity III- Quezon City; San Fernando, La Union;
Intensity II- Bacoor Cavite; Plaridel, Bulacan
Intensity I- Tagaytay City
Expecting Damage : NO
Expecting Aftershocks : YES
Issued On : 17 Jun 2012 - 06:35 AM
Prepared by : MCE/JPF/KVS
PHIVOLCS

had lost that Philippine Network site address,
heres the 2012 data page www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph...

reply to post by muzzy


how deep is that cliff face ?

depth 33km not that deep.

reply to post by BobAthome

Google Earth say -5km deep into the Manila Trench to the west
the locals are saying the quake only 12km deep.

Hello people,
I have a very random question but it is something I have been thinking about. I understand you may not be able to answer but you guys are probably the best bet I have given your obvious knowledge on this awesome subject.

Is there a hypothetical way that there could be a quake way off the Richter Scale? I'm talking about 10-50 as a very broad example.
Or is there no reason why it couldn't happen?

I understand that big quakes happen as pressure builds.
One possibility I was thinking of is if a big quake happens on one side of a plate it could cause a big quake on the other side for example.

reply to post by muzzy


yes and not much action in that immediate vicinity,, might be underwater,, look for water color changes,, dead stuff,, etc,,
ohh and unusually weird flying stuff in the sky,, as witnessed at Etna.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by muzzy

 

how deep is that cliff face ?

depth 33km not that deep.

since when is 33km not deep?

reply to post by HumanCondition


The biggest recorded quake is the 9.5 or maybe slightly bigger one in Chile in 1960. It broke about 1000km by 300km fault, moving it about 30-40 meters. To get one magnitude unit bigger, there would have to be 10 times the motion, which is more than doubling (2X2X2) all three numbers from the Chile quake. There's no plausible fault that big that could move that far.

So M10 (and that moment magnitude, not Richter magnitude) is about the upper limit of what the Earth can generate by plate tectonics.

That's the answer, if that was your question.

reply to post by BobAthome

Has been very little action in the past in that spot (within 50km)

Date Time: 1872/1/26 0123L
Lat/Long: 15.8, 119.45
Depth:
Mag: 6.8
Deaths:
Location/Intensity: Philippines(Luzon):Agno,Bolinas (1130U?)
Source: Utsu

Date Time: 1999/12/11 1803U
Lat/Long: 15.77, 119.74
Depth: 33
Mag: 7.1
Deaths:
Location/Intensity: Philippines(Luzon)

deaths from shock; 4) 7.3W
Source: Utsu

In honor of todays quake I grabbed a file off Utsu

Interactive Map Philippines Mag 6+ 1619-2003

Geez they've had some bigun's 15 above 7.9

With the orbs over the islands it has an uncanny resemblance to the shape of the United Kingdom (without Ireland)

reply to post by JohnVidale


Sorry, I have to do it. This is not a dig at you John rather a dig at the assuredness of the little animal that we are running around for a brief second or two on the surface of this planet.

There's no plausible fault that big that could move that far.

"In our experience during such a very short time on this planet we are not aware from the very small part of it that we have properly surveyed of any fault that big that could move that far, which does not preclude the possibility of a new fault that big occurring - something way beyond our very limited experience."

Of course I do agree that a Mag 10 would probably be the biggest and we will probably not ever get anything bigger than that, but we know so little about this planet that I don't think we can categorically state that. Theoretically a 10.5 is possible however unlikely. An 11.5 is however NOT theoretically possible I believe so the theoretical limit, at which the fault encircles the earth, is somewhere above 10.5

Originally posted by PuterMan
An 11.5 is however NOT theoretically possible I believe so the theoretical limit, at which the fault encircles the earth, is somewhere above 10.5

Unless a big huge asteroid were to hit smack dab on the Cascadia subduction zone and trigger it to go off.

I don't see why it's not possible that a fault could rupture more in width, resulting in not only a very long fault rupture, but a very wide one, thereby increasing the Mw beyond that 10.5. I'll see your 10.5 and raise you .3 to 10.8!

Hey can someone tell me if there is fracking goin on in this area? Thanks in advanced.

2012 June 17 13:40:31 UTC


This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.
Magnitude
3.3
Date-Time
Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 13:40:31 UTC
Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 08:40:31 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location
36.395°N, 89.522°W
Depth
8.5 km (5.3 miles)
Region
SOUTHEASTERN MISSOURI
Distances
21 km (13 miles) S of New Madrid, Missouri
41 km (25 miles) NNW of Dyersburg, Tennessee
146 km (90 miles) NNE of Memphis, Tennessee
243 km (150 miles) W of NASHVILLE, Tennessee
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 2.3 km (1.4 miles); depth +/- 3.7 km (2.3 miles)
Parameters
NST= 58, Nph= 58, Dmin=16.1 km, Rmss=0.53 sec, Gp= 25°,
M-type="Nuttli" surface wave magnitude (mbLg), Version=4
Source
USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Event ID
us2012byaq

INFO

reply to post by lurksoften


I wanted to answer your question without looking at the back of the textbook. Of course there would be no fracking here. I mean, we're talking about an epicenter right on the Mississippi, beside Reelfoot Lake (which was created by the big ones 1811/1812) and just south of New Madrid, the "offical epicenter" of the seismic zone.

I looked. No, Fracking. But it is a maverelously twisted and interesting geological feature to note. Somewhere there, is the spot where the river ran backward for awhile. Hence, Reelfoot Lake.

As intensive and as unsustainable as the fracking in the U.S. is, I don't think they're crazy enough to frack in the zone. But. They're fracking in and around Enola, Arkansas and that was known to be a seimic zone before they gave out permits. So. Who the hell knows?


But this quake isn't exactly a surprise. Last week, we had a cluster of quakes around the eastern end of Tennessee, up against Georgia, South Carolina. Where'd they go? So, it's all quiet now. The clusters have migrated west and now the busy part is on the NMSZ. Earthquakes here are absolutely normal. 0-5 anywhere there is expected. This last week has seen quite a few along with a renew Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas.

So what? Right. That's what I'm asking myself. So what? The only thing I can pull out of this and make it big and scary for practically no reason at all is, this earthquake is slightly bigger than the norm. Earthquakes here seem to be very consistent and range from about 1 -2.5M. For the most part don't get up past 2.5M and I would say the vast majority are about 2.2M. EDIT ( this is wrong. most don't make 2.0M)

If the U.S. wasn't running all around the New Madrid Seimic Zone punching holes and fillin' back up, I'd say there is nothing to see here- move along. But that's not the case.

How can you have earthquakes in the range of 4- 5.8M all around the New Madrid, and not effect the stresses within the zone?

In my opininion you can't.




Damn, wrong again. There have been a couple other bigger ones. There was a 3.9 M on the northern tip of the NMSZ around East Prarie Missouri.

reply to post by PuterMan


I suppose this question of the biggest earthquake hinges on just how unlikely are the scenarios one considers possible. Perhaps one could daisy chain 10 magnitude 9.5s together to make one magnitude 10.5 - seems like it would be pretty much every fault on the planet breaking at once. Not physically impossible, but not happening very often, in fact probably a vanishingly small chance in the entire history of the planet. Maybe as a side effect of a Moon-sized meteorite impact.

More likely would be that any one reader is being kept in the dark, and the physical character of the planet is different than we are told. Or that mantle convection can run into an instability, and turn over so fast it would be an M12 or 13 earthquake. Or that space aliens could rip the planet in half at the speed of light - that must be worth an M14 or 15 at least.

So I'll stick with M10 as an effective upper limit, with the caveat that maybe unforeseen forces might show up someday.

reply to post by JohnVidale


I like that you have a sense of humor!
2nd

might as well start the week off with another gripe about USGS's realtimeearthquakemapthingymajig

I was just loading the SNZO graph for Luzon 6.0 and there were also 2 unidentified quakes on the same graph.
SO while I was there I thought I'd check back on a few other unidentified entries on older graphs and see if anything had come up since. Started with the first one 23-24thMaySNZO
So I set the realtimeearthquakemapthingymajig to 0-30 days

But it ends on the 25th

From and including: Thursday, 24 May 2012
To and including: Monday, 18 June 2012
It is only 26 days from the start date to the end date, end date included

So where are the other 4 days

useless

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2012-06-17T20:32:00.000Z,38.90000,142.10000,6.1000,40.0000,Miyagi-ken Oki

JMA


North east of Fukushima

USGS just came in at 6.4

Magnitude 6.4 - Near The East Coast Of Honshu. Japan

Location in Google Maps

• Date-Time: Sunday, June 17, 2012 @ 20:32:20 UTC
  
• Earthquake location: 38.894°N, 141.946°E,
  
• Earthquake depth: 31.8 km
  
• Distances:
  28km (17mi) SE of Ofunato, Japan
  41km (25mi) S of Kamaishi, Japan
  52km (32mi) S of Otsuchi, Japan
  58km (36mi) SE of Tono, Japan
  407km (252mi) NNE of Tokyo, Japan
  
• Event ID: usb000ahy0
  

Derived from Event Data Source: USGS
Powered by QVSData

reply to post by muzzy


Try increasing the number of earthquakes it is showing. I thought that at first - that I was short of some days - and then found it was the number of quakes being displayed.