Quake Watch 2012

maps.google.com...,83.122559&spn=14.113197,21.51123&sll=38.376115,82.485352&sspn=14.18012 9,21.51123&t=h&z=6

Looks like the its not very populated so hopefully will be ok,

USGS puts magnitude of Xinjiang quake at 5.8; struck 136 miles south-southeast of Aksu

Magnitude mb 5.9
Region SOUTHERN XINJIANG, CHINA
Date time 2012-03-08 22:50:08.6 UTC
Location 39.41 N ; 81.40 E
Depth 40 km
Distances 573 km SE Almaty (pop 1,204,762 ; local time 04:50:08.6 2012-03-09)
217 km SE Aksu (pop 340,020 ; local time 06:50:08.6 2012-03-09)
287 km SW Kuche (pop 68,105 ; local time 06:50:08.6 2012-03-09)

EMSC

Here is what earthquake-report.com... has to say about the China Quake.. luckily in the desert. Whew!

Update 23:47 UTC : – The greater epicenter area is desert (see image below). Peak ground acceleration is the direct epicenter area is limited. Update 23:34 UTC : – The Chinese Seismological Agency (to be trusted) reports a Magnitude of 6.0 at a depth of 30 km, a little stronger than USGS. Update 23:30 UTC : – WAPMERR, the theoretical damage engine has calculated that this earthquake will normally not make victims. The max. injured is 0 to 10. Update 23:28 UTC : – USGS has calculated (theoretical engines) that 4,000 people will experience a strong shaking, 3,000 a moderate shaking and 508,000 people a light shaking. - Chinese houses are mostly build in brick and adobe and are very vulnerable for earthquake damage. Update 23:22 UTC : -Luckily the epicenter of this earthquake is located in an unpopulated area. GDACS gas calculated that only 3,523 people are living within a radius of 50 km. 7,224 people in a radius of 100 km and 581,583 people within a radius of 200 km. - Earthquake-Report.com estimates that only the people living within a radius of 50 km have a potential danger of damage. Update 23:18 UTC : – Earthquakes with this magnitude can be very dangerous in China.

reply to post by JohnVidale


I am well aware of the meaning of the short lines as it clearly states this in the image. However it is also plain to see that there are THREE thicker lines which relate to mag 9 earthquakes which would affect the Puget Sound or Portland as they are full length ruptures.

Obviously the image is a representation but if you scale off the marks you get:

• 1230 Mag 9
  
• 1450 Mag 8
  
• 1560 Mag 9
  
• 1690 Mag 9
  

In the post to which you linked you stated:

The interval between events has been observed to vary from 200 to 800 years, so if the future is like the past, the event is likely to hit any time from now until 500 years from now.

and

Now, after 311 years without an earthquake, the odds are about 50% higher than the long-term average, about a 1 in 350 chance each year, or about a 15% chance every 50 years.

Looking at the graphic it is quite clear that there may have been 800 year gaps BC, but not AD, indeed if the graphic is to be believed the past 1000 years is the sole one with 3 Magnitude 9 events. It is therefore quite possible that other triples have occurred but are not evident because of the long time span. Alternatively it may also be that the dynamic has changed.

Taking the past 1000 years we have (ball park) 1200, 1550 and 1700 - none of which represent 500 year gaps let alone 800 year gaps.

Indeed even from 1000 BC the gaps are roughly

470, 550, 190, 490

You could perhaps make a case for 500 year intervals, but there is no case for 800. Bring that right through to 1700 and you get.

470, 550, 190, 490, 350, 150

This is an average of 367 years so I will go along with 1 in 350 as that more of less matches. But now we have a problem because if we are 311 years on the odds are not 50%, they are 88.85% - call it 89% - on your logic.

A "15% chance every 50 years" is a very different kettle of fish to what the geologists are apparently saying which is a "15% chance in the next 50 years". Those two statements are not the same. In addition to that the percentage chance of having an earthquake of mag 9 is NOT linear so to say there is a 1/350 chance each year is incorrect.

It sounds good but believe me I crunch numbers for a living and in no way can you look at it like that. A (rather poor) illustration of the reality against the linear model would be thus. (Bearing in mind this is for a mag 9)



I say rather poor because in fact the curve would be very much steeper much later in the time span and very much flatter earlier as in fact until sufficient stress has built it would be impossible to have a mag 9 anyway. Once it has reached that stress level it is not only immediately possible but every period from then on makes it ever more likely.

The plot is not on the possibility of a mag 9 earthquake but on the possibility of ANY earthquake and therefore is actually a plot of the stress build up in the area. Once could argue that the 89% represents the chance of a mag 9, but actually what it says is that there is an 89% chance of an earthquake which could be up to (in effect) 89% of the energy of a mag 9.

I am assuming here that your 1/350 is a linear representation of the proportion of stress needed for a Mag 9 and therefore the second statement is correct assuming the stress build to be more or less constant.

Since a mag 9 is ~1,995 Petajoules what it is actually saying is that there is sufficient stress for a quake of ~1,696 Petajoules, which believe it or not is Magnitude 8.953

It is my belief that the good citizens of Cascadia would be just as devastated by a magnitude 8.953 as a Magnitude 9. In fact I doubt they will argue the toss over 0.05 magnitude.

I agree that you are correct when you say it could be a longer period and the timeline gives evidence of intervals, in more recent history, of a maximum of about 550 years, thus it IS possible there may not be another event for ~230 years but I cannot go along with 500 years. The figures just do not give credence to that.

What geology generally needs to ascertain is just what factors come into play in the build up of stress that prevent if from being a linear build thus giving differential gaps in seismicity. That may be too large a task as the reasons could be many, but I suspect that the underlying movement creating the stress is pretty much a constant.

I don't mean to be disrespectful John, and I appreciate that you are the scientist and not me but I believe this represents a VERY real danger not - and that is using YOUR figures not mine - and not a mere 15% chance in 50 years. That statement by the geologists is I believe misleading at best and plain wrong at worst.

You can only kick the tin down the road so long before picking it up.

reply to post by PuterMan


Interesting points. Yes, the 800-yr interval is BC, but well inside the interval Chris claims to resolve. I checked Goldfinger's draft monograph, which is accepted for publication but not yet finalized, and is available at activetectonics.coas.oregonstate.edu... (a real tome). The penultimate event, which is controversial, is 200 years before 1700, see figure 52c, for example.

Indeed we estimate the average using the entire 10,000 years despite there being higher rates more recently than prior. Chris argues that he has not missed any M9s. The average danger is thus about 1/500 per year from 19 in 10,000 years, and 1/300 per year given that no M9 quake has struck since the last M9 310 years ago.

Perhaps it is relevant that for recurrence, derived global observations for many earthquake sequences, odds for an earthquake do not rise exponentially with time since last event. They rise to about twice the long term average and stay there even as late as twice the recurrence interval. So if an M9 doesn't hit in the next 300 years, the odds per year will still not have risen much above 1/250 per year.

People don't get excited about reporting numbers that do not rise rise thrillingly, but earthquake odds do not skyrocket when fault are "10-months pregnant".

reply to post by JohnVidale

They rise to about twice the long term average and stay there even as late as twice the recurrence interval.

Interesting. I am seeing possible evidence that this is not the case, but I guess that it may depend on what is defined as the recurrence period. We will no doubt discuss this further when I have finished my deliberations!

By the way choosing the whole 10,000 year period despite the fact that there appear to be two different rates skews the figures in your (the geologists) favour.

As always you are men in white coats guessing, and we are men without white coats guessing even more!!

ETA: Wow that is a lot of reading. See you all next year!

but earthquake odds do not skyrocket when fault are "10-months pregnant".

I was thinking about that one. (By the way where did that phrase come from?? !!)

You are correct there the odds go down, depending on how you look at it. 250/1 against at the start and 1/1 at the end. Only in the bookies does it go to worse than that!!

reply to post by PuterMan


"10-months pregnant" applied to faults is one of my least favorite phrases. I have a running Google search for that in the news to consider complaining in the comments, as being overdue does NOT skyrocket the odds.

I just googled it and "earthquake", and got 800,000+ hits!

reply to post by MamaJ


mentioned in there that the Chinese ( to be trusted ) reported that quake as a 6.0

here it is on the cenc
时间: 2012-03-09 06:50:09.1
纬度: 39.4
经度: 81.3
深度: 30
震级: Ms6.0
震中位置: 新疆维吾尔自治区和田地区洛浦县

www.csndmc.ac.cn...

the Russians who are prone to giving Ms as well didn't in this case
5.9mb

Next Big Earthquake In Less Than 40 Hours!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by Anim8tr
started on 3/7/2012 @ 05:05 PM

Earthquake Details

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.
Magnitude
7.1
Date-Time
Friday, March 09, 2012 at 07:09:54 UTC
Friday, March 09, 2012 at 06:09:54 PM at epicenter
Location
19.109°S, 169.625°E
Depth
36.8 km (22.9 miles)
Region
VANUATU
Distances
60 km (38 miles) NE (39°) from Isangel, Vanuatu
206 km (128 miles) SE (137°) from PORT-VILA, Vanuatu
324 km (201 miles) NE (34°) from Tadine, Loyalty Islands, New Caledonia
1934 km (1202 miles) ENE (65°) from Brisbane, Australia
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 14.8 km (9.2 miles); depth +/- 9.2 km (5.7 miles)
Parameters
NST= 90, Nph= 91, Dmin=466.4 km, Rmss=0.94 sec, Gp= 29°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=7
Source
Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Event ID
usb0008e4z
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Edit: Doh, barely beaten!
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Magnitude 7.1
Date-Time

Friday, March 09, 2012 at 07:09:54 UTC
Friday, March 09, 2012 at 06:09:54 PM at epicenter

Location 19.109°S, 169.625°E
Depth 36.8 km (22.9 miles)
Region VANUATU
Distances

60 km (38 miles) NE (39°) from Isangel, Vanuatu
206 km (128 miles) SE (137°) from PORT-VILA, Vanuatu
324 km (201 miles) NE (34°) from Tadine, Loyalty Islands, New Caledonia
1934 km (1202 miles) ENE (65°) from Brisbane, Australia

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 14.8 km (9.2 miles); depth +/- 9.2 km (5.7 miles)
Parameters NST= 90, Nph= 91, Dmin=466.4 km, Rmss=0.94 sec, Gp= 29°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=7
Source

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

Event ID usb0008e4z

USGS probably a bit high with that Vanuatu

GFZ 6.7Mw
Seisme.nc 6.6M
EMSC 6.8Mw

Aussies on the upside 7.0Mw

reply to post by TMG333

It looks to me that all the Helicorders in the midwest picked up on this. I think thats pretty cool.

@JohnVidale & Putterman.

Pardon my chirping in here.
Is my 'observation' correct that the data in reference are based on geophysical evidence found in sediments based on Tsunami related events/earthquakes?

Is it not true that not all earthquakes does cause or result in a Tsunami event?

Thus if we are only looking at Tsunami signals, as I belief is this case; we wll not be aware of the possible numbers of other 8/9 mag quakes that did not cause a flood based signature/deposit.

reply to post by Aromaz


Turbidites are the dominant dataset, although for the past 5000 years, we can in many cases check them against evidence from tsunamis on the coast and other geological signs of earthquakes.

The prevalent opinion in the field is that all M9s make detectable tsunamis, but M8-8.5 events may or may not have been recognized, and not all claims of earthquake deposits really are.

Some disagree with most of the M8-8.5 earthquake inferred from turbidites, some think all happened and then some more as well. It's an active topic of research.

It has been predicted,
that a very large quake,
will occur in this region.



From "JERUSALEM POST". (03/08/2012 04:45).

quote,

"GII: 3.7 quake centered in Kinneret, Hula areas"


By YAAKOV LAPPIN
AND JERUSALEM POST STAFF
03/08/2012 04:45
"Tremor felt by residents of Metulla, Kiryat Shmona and Tiberias; police say no immediate reports of damage or injuries."

By Joe Yudin

"The epicenter of an earthquake felt across northern Israel Sunday was in the Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) and Hula area, the Geophysical Institute of Israel (GII) stated.
With a 3.7 impact on the Richter scale, the earthquake was felt by residents of Metulla, Kiryat Shmona and Tiberias. Police said there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.


An earthquake measuring 4.2 on the Richter scale struck in August 2011,


and was felt in various parts of the country.
There were no reports of damage or injuries.
At the time, the GII confirmed that the epicenter of the quake was in the Mediterranean Sea, some 40 kilometers west of Binyamina. The institute received reports from people who felt the quake in Haifa, Afula, Tel Aviv, Herzliya and Kibbutz Nativ.
Another earthquake
struck earlier that year

in April,

although that tremor did not register on the Richter scale.
In July, National Economic Council chair Professor Eugene Kandel said that Israel was not financially ready to cope with the aftermath of a large earthquake, Army Radio reported.

“I don’t recommend to anyone to rely on the government in such a scenario,” Kandel said."

unquote

www.jpost.com...

Originally posted by BobAthome
It has been predicted,
that a very large quake,
will occur in this region.



From "JERUSALEM POST". (03/08/2012 04:45).

quote,

"GII: 3.7 quake centered in Kinneret, Hula areas"

. . .

although that tremor did not register on the Richter scale.
In July, National Economic Council chair Professor Eugene Kandel said that Israel was not financially ready to cope with the aftermath of a large earthquake, Army Radio reported.

“I don’t recommend to anyone to rely on the government in such a scenario,” Kandel said."

unquote

www.jpost.com...

Perhaps the planet is just adjusting things a bit . . . setting things up in Israel . . .

for the Mount of Olives to split . . . and the big valley form . . . when Creator God, Jesus The Christ sets foot on it as predicted . . .

Yes, I realize that the Mt of Olives is a considerable distance from the Sea of Galilee.

6.7 2012/03/09 07:09:53 -19.115 169.643 31.7 VANUATU

thought so.

and thats just from checking the other Networks.

I had been LISSless for a couple of days, just found out they changed the web address

for those who had similar problems, heres the new address

earthquake.usgs.gov...


the Aussies still haven't finalised it

The Russians in with a low MS

date= 09-Mar-2012 07:09:53.0
lat= -19.12 lon= 169.58
depth= 33km
ms: 6.3/16
mb: 6.2/15

www.ceme.gsras.ru...


ppffft just a tiddler for Vanuatu

Ok... here we are in March..almost the 11th and Japan looks like it is on shaky ground.. Can any handy dandy person pull up this time last year in Japan and post it for me? Please

It looks as if it is swarming ....but maybe just MAYBE I am a little on the paranoid side.

Originally posted by MamaJ
Ok... here we are in March..almost the 11th and Japan looks like it is on shaky ground..

Can any handy dandy person pull up this time last year in Japan and post it for me? Please

It looks as if it is swarming ....but maybe just MAYBE I am a little on the paranoid side.

edit on 9-3-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

Hey, MamaJ.

Here's the EMSC search tool.

All you have to do is choose the date, say March 7-12, 2011 and then you'll see the results immediately.

I don't believe that USGS allows you to query things as so, limiting us to the week in advance. Significant quakes in general and those that happened in the US area can be queried for.

Also, you may find this useful. It's a look at Japan's impressive system, equip with sounds and current data.

Its that time again,,,for long time followers too feel anxious,,well at least i do.


Magnitude 7.3
Date-Time

* Wednesday, March 09, 2011 at 02:45:20 UTC
* Wednesday, March 09, 2011 at 11:45:20 AM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 38.440°N, 142.840°E
Depth 32 km (19.9 miles) set by location program
Region NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN


Me.