Quake Watch 2012

page: 37
159
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Hey everyone,

I stumbled across this today and it got me thinking....

I am such a novice here its blush worthy so please be patient.

I was wondering though if this technology was being used for major faults of concern across the globe to monitor and maybe predict future quake activity.

If so;

Is it available online?
Is the data useful?
How could it be used to predict future quakes?

Lilly




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lilith27
Hey everyone,

I stumbled across this today and it got me thinking....

I am such a novice here its blush worthy so please be patient.

I was wondering though if this technology was being used for major faults of concern across the globe to monitor and maybe predict future quake activity.

If so;

Is it available online?
Is the data useful?
How could it be used to predict future quakes?

Lilly



Thats a fascinating map Lilly. Im guessing that that's the technology that the USGS is using, plus other stuff, to map surface changes and why they were so concerned about the Salton Sea area this past summer. There was a thread on that and a ton of other stuff started because a USGS guy posted this dire warning about uplift etc in so cal near the Mexican border. The thread is an interesting read with alot of data but I cant remember the name of it. Im sure someone else does.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Alaska is shakin' a bit too. Few smaller quakes near Anchorage yesterday or the day before.

MAP 4.6 2012/02/10 06:52:45 51.983 -171.433 36.3 FOX ISLANDS, ALASKA
MAP 4.9 2012/02/10 06:28:36 52.080 -171.432 70.8 FOX ISLANDS, ALASKA
MAP 4.5 2012/02/10 06:23:40 51.190 -176.141 35.0 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALASKA

USGS

Edit: Another added to top.
edit on 10/2/12 by murkraz because: Added another.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 



for your emsc 5.4, which they have now downgraded even further to 5.3
I know,I posted before USGS reported.


TextMagnitude Mw 6.0 Region FIJI REGION Date time 2012-02-10 01:47:33.0 UTC Location 17.94 S ; 178.52 W Depth 570 km Distances 323 km E Suva (pop 199,455 ; local time 13:47:33.5 2012-02-10) 277 km SE Labasa (pop 33,397 ; local time 13:47:33.5 2012-02-10) 44 km NE Tubou (pop 578 ; local time 13:47:33.5 2012-02-10)
source(www.emsc-csem.org...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 5senses
 



and don't remember when there were that many plus mag 3's


Nothing to be concerned about. That is a highly active area. There are often swarms there as Mag 5's are not uncommon.

From the ANSS catalog 2001 to 2011 Magnitude 4.5 quakes in the area. I would use the Icelandic data that I have which goes back to 1995 but it is not in a format I can get at easily yet.

ETA: Sorry not very clear. This graph is the NUMBER of quakes total in each month above 4.5


And energy released



edit on 10/2/2012 by PuterMan because: 'cos I dun messed it up



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Excellent graphs, Puterman. Many thanks. So often, I think it's easier for us to see what's what when we have the data in this form, rather than just lists of numbers.

Much appreciated!

Mike
edit on 10/2/12 by JustMike because: the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by zworld
 



However, due to the fact that the ring of fire has been so active in the last 100 years


Yes but you are making an assumption that this has increased the stress on the Cascadia zone. It is equally possible that it has not. We need to delve a whole lot deeper into this I think before coming to any conclusions.

One of the things Mike mentioned was the variability of the bigger quakes. Could this be evidence that for example big quakes in Japan relieve stress on Cascadia?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Yes I like a graph. Much easier to take in.

Thanks by the way.

 

What do people think of the bar charts as opposed to columns by the way. It makes it easier to get much data in and still see the picture but makes for a much longer scroll down. I quite like them personally.

No need to post a special reply - just tack you answer to the end of you next post so as not to go too off topic.
edit on 10/2/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



Perhaps PuterMan should answer that question, seeing as he doesn't believe in tectonics theory


Now that is not strictly true Mr TA. I believe there are many unanswered questions with this newfangled theory and there are many unanswered questions with many of the other theories such as expanding earth and surge tectonics (I quite like that one actually) so i have not dismissed it entirely and as i think I have said many times before the answer probably lies somewhere in between all of them.

Humans, and in particular scientists, have a great propensity for ignoring data that does not fit. There are many things that don't fit with all these.

The only thing you can be sure of is that plate tectonics, like everything else, contributes to global climate warming change disaster and the areas with large tectonic movements must be taxed to mitigate this and the money (after deduction of 95% costs) distributed to areas that are lacking in tectonic movement. This of course can be traded on the magma and tectonics derivatives exchange.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Will Mt Lokon blowing last night slow down the quakes, speed them up or make no difference?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

This matter of Japan's major subduction zones versus the CSZ is one I've been wondering over increasingly during the past year. Okay, the past 11 months, since Japan's big one on March 11.

Does Japan-region activity impact the CSZ, and if so, in what way? Because the first problem is that while we can assume that whatever happens with Japan has to influence the CSZ and perhaps other regions, that's all it is: an assumption. I think it's a fair one, if we allow plate tectonic theory is more-or-less correct in the concept that plates subduct because of pressure on the opposite edge due to lateral pressure from spread at the ridges.

While I don't think the theory is the be-all and end-all it's at least something to be going along with for now, so, like most, I'm happy to accept that assumption as valid. Okay, so we have plates being pushed laterally in both directions from expansion points at ridges. When a subducting plate on one of the opposite sides from the ridge lets go, what's the effect on the plate on the other side and its own subducting edge?

Now I'm going to think out loud. I hope you all can follow the ummm... the following...

If the plates on both sides of the ridge are under stress, then does the pressure on them increase (from ridge expansion) at roughly the same rate? From the point of view of action and reaction, it's not unreasonable that it does. Granted, we could present arguments to the contrary, but for the sake of the discussion let's say that it is so: the pressure from the ridge is applied equally.

In that case, the periodic failures (ruptures) along each plate's subducting edge occur at intervals largely determined by those other influences we've discussed.

However, when a subduction zone lets go and much of the stress along that boundary is relieved in a huge quake, could it be that as the plate is now de-stressed (so to speak), then a greater proportion of the energy from the expanding ridge gets transferred to that plate. I'm thinking of the "path of least resistance" concept, which is commonly observed in nature. Yes, some energy is still going into the other plate, but as it's already under greater stress than the one that just let go, it gets less of it.

I know there are holes in this line of reasoning but I'm just putting it out there.

Now, to take the opposite tack. What if the release of stress on one side of the ridge actually "unbalances" the ridge itself? The ridge is (apparently) a key to the whole energy-transfer system, after all. Could it be that releasing stress from one side of the ridge allows the ridge to open more, hence allowing greater energy release than had been occurring on average for years or centuries prior? In that case, even if the still-stressed plate gets a lesser "share" of the energy transferred from the ridge, the ridge's total energy release is now greater (as it has opened more) and so it could be putting more energy into the stressed ridge than it did before the other ridge let go.

If this latter scenario is possibly correct, then we ought to see some kind of increase of quake activity along the stressed plate's subduction boundary.

And just by the way, the USGS maps for the PNW now show ten offshore quakes in the CSZ during the past seven days, and three of them are right along the subduction boudary (purple line on the USGS maps). They took their sweet time adding them but they are there now.

And Puterman: yes, I prefer those graphs as you have them in your newest post. It matters not if they're longer. No problem with needing to scroll down.


Mike
edit on 10/2/12 by JustMike because: O tempores, o mores, o typos!




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ur44lois
 

The simple answer is: it's very hard to say. Here's why: Mt Lokon is very active anyway and has had numerous eruptions over the years. Also, that whole region is highly volcanic and seismic, so although we believe that there is sometimes a link between volcanic eruptions and quakes, Indonesia gets so many of both that it's very difficult to determine the relationships. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg thing: if the quakes and eruptions are linked, which comes first? Is a quake a trigger for a volcano, or vice versa? And what's the time interval? Hours? Days? Years?

True, we have observed several cases where larger quakes occurred and a volcano in the vicinity erupted shortly after -- sometimes within days or even hours. But the trouble is, it's possible that the pre-eruption activity deep within a given volcano itself may have been what helped to set off the nearby quake.

So, a good question but probably impossible for anyone to answer for sure one way or another right now.

EDIT to ADD:

A little info about Lokon's eruption history, from the website of vulcanologist John Seach Volcano Live (dot) com.

Lokon-Empung Volcano Eruptions

2011-12, 2000-03, 1991-92, 1988, 1986-87, 1984?, 1975-80, 1973-74, 1971, 1969-70, 1966, 1965, 1963-64, 1962, 1961, 1958-59, 1951-53, 1949, 1942, 1930, 1893-94, 1829, 1775, 1375


Mike
edit on 10/2/12 by JustMike because: Added infor from John Seach



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike

However, when a subduction zone lets go and much of the stress along that boundary is relieved in a huge quake, could it be that as the plate is now de-stressed (so to speak), then a greater proportion of the energy from the expanding ridge gets transferred to that plate. I'm thinking of the "path of least resistance" concept, which is commonly observed in nature. Yes, some energy is still going into the other plate, but as it's already under greater stress than the one that just let go, it gets less of it.

Interesting concept. I need to think about that one.

If the earth is a ball of magma with a thin hard layer (lithoshperre and upper most mantle) covering it, and moving independently from it, and with the current thought that an EQ anywhere can transmit power throughout the entire lithoshpere via P and S wave pulse, I dont think the above theory would work. When the Northridge quake happened and it triggered EQs a 1000 miles away (I think that was the quake they used for that data), that energy passed through locked points to get to where it ended up.

Mid pacific ridging however is a different story. Where you have magma forcing its way to the surface and pushing a plate apart, this energy is directional. However, does it stop at any given point....probably not if current tectonic theories are true. It heads in a direction and keeps going until contained. Where that energy ends up would be independent of anything we know about.

Anyway, thats just thinking out loud. Im going to look into that theory further.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lilith27
 

It has been done for Christchurch too, but as with this is only shows the aftermath, so is no use in predicting earthquakes or fault changes before hand.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Man, this thread makes me want to go back to school to study earthquakes and plate tectonics and all that jazz. I really appreciate everything you guys post here, it's very intriguing and it's been a long time since something really interested me this much.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Here is an animated rendition of the whole of 2011. Put earphones on, but don't turn them too high.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3n3p5i9o5
Here is an animated rendition of the whole of 2011. Put earphones on, but don't turn them too high.

www.youtube.com...


Boy finding that just saved me a boatload of work. Thank you.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zworld
 



Where you have magma forcing its way to the surface and pushing a plate apart, this energy is directional. However, does it stop at any given point....probably not if current tectonic theories are true. It heads in a direction and keeps going until contained.


forcing it's way to the surface....now, just thinking out loud.....forcing. Mm, does not seem to be much 'forcing' really. If you think about the massive distance from the spreading ridges to Japan - approximately 11,000 km, and then from the spreading ridges to South America, about 4000 miles you have to wonder why this spreading ridge in the Pacific is not a whole lot more visible than it is.

It is pushing 15,000 or more kilometres of the earth's surface - round about half. That is some push for a line of magma coming to the surface with little explosivity at the ridge. There is more at the edges. You would think that the vast energy required to shift that lot would create a huge pile of volcanoes in the mid atlantic, and I mean really big ones but no, there are none yet we are supposed to believe that India is unstoppable and has created the largest pile in the world just by crashing into Tibet.

There is a raised area in the Atlantic and a slightly less raised area in the Pacific around the spreading ridges but hardly evidence of the forces needed to move the whole of the crust. Ah no it is the lithospheric conveyor belt you cry. This is what pushes it up in the middle and pulls it down at the edges.

Then, thinking out loud, we have the Atlantic. Mm, pretty much no subduction zones yet this spreading ridge is supposedly not pushing oceanic lithosphere but much thicker continental lithosphere including the mass of both the North and South Americas and a good chunk of Europe. Do we see much 'forcing' along the MAR? not really.

Thinking out loud also, North and South America are travelling SW, a fact that most seem to forget when jumping up and down about cold sinking bits of broken plate and subduction zones.

The evidence in the line of caldera at Yellowstone shows this. Maybe the JDF plate is not being pulled down but is being forced down by the big bully America riding straight over the top of it?

If the spreading heads in one direction then, just thinking out loud again, how is it spreading in the Pacific through at least 90 degrees or more if the arrows are to be believed? There is no signs of splitting where the plate should be diverging. How is that?

How does Antarctica have spreading ridges all the way around it yet the only subduction to be seen is about 1600 km at the tip of South America. Is Antarctica being squeezed into that space like toothpaste or is Antarctica the most table spot on the planet that is pushing the whole world Northwards?

And all of this is pushing China/Russia and that wedge of Europe North, except it isn't because at the top the spreading ridge is pushing it south and giving USA the boot as well.

OK. Draw me the cross-section showing why that conveyor does not work for the Atlantic, or if you prefer how it is supposed to work in the Atlantic, or the Antarctic. I would love to know how this works because as far as I can see it does not. We normally get a twee little drawings that are completely fictional. I want to see the real cross-sections explaining it.

It is almost impossible to show what I am meaning but at the end of the day there are several elements missing from Google Earth, not least of which are the directions of the continents as opposed to the bits that are supposedly pushing under them if the GPS is to be believed.

What did become of that 18mm by the way?

And one final thought out loud. If the MAR and PAR were just infilling spaces would that be because there was no lithospheric conveyor or because the earth is expanding?

By the way try showing set set of cross-sections that explains the conveyor in the Pacific as well and don't forget to factor in the Coriolis effect. I am looking forward to seeing these. Anyone up to the challenge?

edit on 10/2/2012 by PuterMan because: Spelling and grammar :bnghd:



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 3n3p5i9o5
 


That is really neat!!!
A couple of the grandkids are here tonight & they watched it & were really impressed!!!
They asked a bazillion questions about eq's!
Maybe they will become earthquake watchers too!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
Thinking out loud also, North and South America are travelling SW, a fact that most seem to forget when jumping up and down about cold sinking bits of broken plate and subduction zones.


Not sure what you mean. The North American plate is moving to the west/southwest and the JDF/Gorda is moving east. Hence the subduction.



The evidence in the line of caldera at Yellowstone shows this. Maybe the JDF plate is not being pulled down but is being forced down by the big bully America riding straight over the top of it?


I agree, and in fact think that the edge of every tectonic plate is either being pushed forward and up, or pulled down





new topics
top topics
 
159
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join