It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Quake Watch 2013

page: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:54 AM
reply to post by Olivine

reply to post by muzzy

Ok Olivine I see I'm not welcome, np ..

First area what I post or predict is southern from dangerous area on image above but you probably have something else in your head or other interest to see that, also on image is very specific area ..

Secend If you find two most dangerous months in every year for M 8.2 + I will be very happy to see that, also I already post some possible areas in this thread for M 8.2 + but need more time to see where will probably hit ..

Third I will not make anymore prediction here on yours "thread" or making post, we will see what you and similar to you predict accurate and how you will be helpful in predicting EQ's in future but I see already in 2012 how and what you learn people or how make EQ prediction ..

GOod luck to you and your websites, Lo0l ..

Oh and sry because you and some of you can't see anything helpful or important in my prediction, what I can do I boring person can't post so interesting post like you doing here in last two years ..

Go0d fun ..
edit on 4-2-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:54 AM
reply to post by MariaLida

MariaLida, I did not say you are not welcome here. I don't feel that way and I didn't intend for my post to come across in that manner.

It's my understanding that this thread, Muzzy's "Quake Watch 2013" is reserved for posts that further our community understanding of earthquake processes, current activity, historic activity, etc from a scientific perspective.

So when I ask you to be more specific with your predictions, or others ask why you feel the way you do about a certain "dangerous area", it is because we are interested in possible reproducible methods of earthquake prediction.

I'm confident every ATS member who posts regularly on this topic knows the complexity of earthquake prediction. To date, it has not been shown to be possible, especially not for every deadly and damaging quake.
But I welcome you, and every other interested person to keep trying---for the greater good.

Maybe you could start a new thread specifically for your earthquake predictions? I hadn't noticed yours in your Chile swarm thread.

edit on 2/4/2013 by Olivine because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/4/2013 by Olivine because: because Chile is a place, not a food (in this instance)

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by MariaLida

I stopped posting to this particular thread as well because I did not meet its' criteria. But do not think your posts went unread as this is ATS . . . not the USGS afterall. Anyhow, now I will go back to reading/lurking . . . just thought i'd put my two-cents in on this thread and its' apparent rules . . . good day! Speaking of the USGS, what is up with their site?

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:33 AM
What is your problem with USGS? I can access the page without any problem, or are you talking about some particular area?

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:34 AM
It looks like the Santa Cruz swarm has ceased for now. I hope that is a good thing, that it means all of the activity vented enough energy to take the stresses off of the area for the time being. Only time will tell.

reply to post by nonnez

There's nothing wrong with it that I can see. I can utilize the map fine, access the LISS page fine, etc. Can you describe what is wrong with the site?

MariaLida, I enjoy hearing your predictions, but I have to agree with Olivine in this case. Quake Watch isn't the An Experiment in Alternative Methods of Earthquake Prediction (which would be the thread for attempting to identify physical & psychological links to EQ events) Therefore, I would not post anything that belongs there here. Likewise, if you refuse to explain your prediction method so it can be put to the test and reproduced by your peers, I'm going to have to equate it to an alternative method in dire need of it's own dedicated thread. Olivine is correct in that the Quake Watch threads are for furthering scientific understanding of the earth processes involved in earthquakes, in understanding how to read data, tracking historical & current patterns, et al. It's not for mysterious unexplained predictions expected to be take at their word on simple blind faith. This doesn't mean that no one wants to hear your theories and predictions, it's just that they really need & deserve their own dedicated thread.

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by MariaLida

Don't get all huffy now, although most of us live in countries with freedom of expression, this is the ATS and they do have some rules.
Sources, sources sources, always or you won't be taken seriously.
I didn't see the link to quakesim on your Chile Topic, you didn't show it here.

The history of Quake Watch on ATS since 2004 is to just present the facts, there are many earthquake prediction threads on ATS already. Sure by all means give a prediction every now and again if you have strong evidence or can explain why you think something will happen, it also helps if you have a good track record of being correct.
I'm not a moderator, on the "staff" or the guy with the big stick, I'm just this years host of QW and part of the responsibility of being the host is to try and keep things on track and not let the tread drift too far off topic or end up in a slanging match.
Like Berklands website most of what you predict is pretty obvious, based on the seismic hazards already well known for a particular area, yep the chance of a 7+ in the Ring of Fire in any given month is a safe prediction, as is a mag 3 in California, Greece, Turkey or NZ on any particular day.
So what use is that?
I'm sure you have read the wiki article on earthquake prediction, most of the commonly known "accurate" predictions have been debunked there

To summarize, if you make a forecast or prediction , say why or you will have no credibility here.
edit on 4-2-2013 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by aLLeKs

Turns out that it is an issue with my ISP and their cache retaining an old site certificate . . . hopefully they will dump it soon as I am having withdrawls I think

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:10 PM
Garfagnana, Italy 4.8 update at 227 hours (approx 9.5 days) after mainshock
65 new events mag 1.1 to 3.3 since the 72 hour mark.
289 aftershocks from a 4.8 is a LOT

[color=lime](click image for interactive map, opens in new tab/window)

Just downloaded the data for L'Aquila 2009 this morning, 390 pages, 17,522 events within 50km of L'Aquila,
482 foreshocks 01/01/2009 to 06/04/2009,
"niente da vedere qui, si muovono lungo per favore"
("nothing to see here, move along please" ....................... yeah right!)

This is going to take a while to process

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:53 PM

Quake may hit trench, says expert

Scientists are warning of the possibility of a megathrust earthquake near New Zealand.


Less than 100km off the coast of Hawke's Bay is a deep-water trench that could be the site of a potential megathrust earthquake similar to the 2011 Japan earthquake, says seismologist Kevin Furlong.

Although we understand the general concept and general physics of megathrusts - the big subduction zone earthquakes - we are finding in our data from recent major events such as in Sumatra [Boxing Day 2004], Chile in 2010, and most recently in Japan, that they each have characteristics that differ from each other, and our existing models of how we might think they should behave during the actual earthquake rupture are incomplete," he said.

"Most of the time, as was the case in Japan for the past several hundred years at least, segments rupture individually and so maximum earthquakes are in the mid-to high magnitude 7 range. But on rare occasions, such as in 2011 in Japan, bigger ruptures can occur.

"We need to decide how best to manage that potential and uncertainty."

The trench will soon be part of a global study into megathrust earthquakes.

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:02 PM
Wowsers ......After a crazy five days on the quake front.....

The earth sleeps!

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:29 PM
NIED/JMA unified hypocenter catalog now officially reports the mag 6 quake of 02/02/2013 as
2013-02-02 23:17:35.27JST, 42.689, 143.236, 107.7, 6.5ML, TOKACHI REGION
thats at the south end of the Tokachi-Obihiro Airport runway

location on Google Maps

Geez 3 different locations now just from the Japanese, AQUA, JMA, and NIED/JMA +/- 20km
let alone USGS, GFZ, RAS, EMSC ,LDEO and GCMT different locations

hard to pin down eh

Predicting earthquakes? pffffft they can't even establish where the ones that have already happened were

edit on 4-2-2013 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by happykat39

Always a possibility !

That won't do much for the beach front property values on the East Coast NI though

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by happykat39

Scientists are warning of the possibility of a megathrust earthquake near New Zealand.

(Not shooting the messenger before anyone misinterprets as normal!!!)

Could this actually be translated as:

"Scientists are warning of the possibility of a megathrust earthquake near New Zealand because the scientists need continued funding and there is nothing better than a good disaster scenario to enable that. The fact that there is no evidence of a magnitude 9 earthquake historically is completely and utterly irrelevant."

Earthquakes in New Zealand (contains list of major historical quakes - max 8.2. A mag 9 is 32 x stronger than an 8.2)

You know I think I am getting a little tired of all the scaremongering by scientists on all fronts.

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

The article might make it sound like sensationalism but there is a lot of information out there suggesting that scientists are rethinking much about what they assume in regards to "how big" an earthquake might be. March 2011 reinforced the folly of relying on only historical records.

Although Japan is the geologically most studied country in the world, the size of the 2011 M9.0 earthquake was a surprise. One of the reasons for this is that forecasts of future earthquakes were based on the history of past earthquakes.
Practical Guide to Earthquakes - 34/72

The two most prominent earthquakes of the last decade in Japan and Sumatra caused a lot of stunned geologists, as they had no idea that either region was capable of producing a megathrust earthquake with a magnitude exceeding ̴ 8.4. Earthquake scientists started to rewrite their predictive models...The analysis admits scientists have likely been underestimating the number of regions around the world that are capable of producing earthquakes on the same scale as that in Tohoku, Japan in 2011. Goldfinger said many of the plate boundaries thought to have the potential for a 9.0 or greater have been part of modeling systems since the 70's. It's possible many models have been wrong, Goldfinger said.

I'm guessing that some geophysicists don't want to face scrutiny if a bigger earthquake (bigger than what historical records suggest is possible) does happen. Hopefully, all this leads to better predictive models than what we have now

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:58 AM
reply to post by MariaLida

Secend If you find two most dangerous months in every year for M 8.2 + I will be very happy to see that, also I already post some possible areas in this thread for M 8.2 + but need more time to see where will probably hit ..

Statistically, and looking at all Mag 8 and greater quakes from 1989 to present (ANSS database), the most common months for a Mag 8 appear to be March or September but interestingly the curve around those two high points is very smooth which may indicate there is a positive and repeatable set of circumstances behind this rather than random chance.

So, having shown that statistically those two months are the most likely, let us take a look at a different set of figures namely the Mag 8 list compiled by our host Muzzy.

The sources for this data are:

Sources, Catalogues Index
M - Alsinawi et al (1975, 1985a, 1985b), Berberian (1994), Ben-Menahem (1979), Eiby (1968ab, 1973), Poirie et al (1980ab), Robson (1964), Rothe (1969)
P - Papazachos and Comninakis (1982), Comninakis and Papazachos (1982), Papazachos et al (1982)
J - Usami (1987, 1996)
G - Ganse and Nelson (1981, 1982), Raid and Myers (1985)
E - Sieberg (1930, 1932)
C- Ko et al (1983, 1984), Sha et al (1983-1987)
N - Ceresis (Centro Regional de Seismologia para America del Sur) (1985)
A - Ambraseys et al (1962ab -2001)
K - Kondorskaya and Shebalin (1982)
R - Milne (1911), Chronological Scientific Tables (1961, 974), Mallet (1850-1853)
U - Coffman, von Hake and Stover (1982)
Z - Geological and Nuclear Sciences, New Zealand
T - WDC-A (1992)
neic - National Earthquake Information Centre, United States Geological Survey
b&d - Bath and Duda (1979)
p&s - Pacheco and Sykes (1992)
noaa - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
GFZ - German Research Centre for Geosciences

The earliest year is 314 AD or whatever they call it these days to be politically correct.

The picture changes to show August as possibly the most likely, but really a fairly even spread over all the months.

Dontcha just love statistics!!!

edit on 5/2/2013 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:00 AM
reply to post by SkipIntro

Yes OK. Point taken. My comment was a little tongue in cheek mainly because there seem to be so many of these type of 'revelations' these days.

Of course (tongue in cheek).....

Earthquake scientists started to rewrite their predictive models.

Yup now they can predict Mag 9 quakes all over the place. It is of course further proof that computer models are NOT the best in all cases and are only as good as the garbage fed into them. They are definitely not reliable in many cases and need to be tweaked often to fit the circumstances that happen after they failed to predict them which then means that other elements get over hyped and we have a wonderful disasterfest on our hands.

I love computers, I just hate the agendas that feed them.
edit on 5/2/2013 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 04:11 AM
While the topic is relevant and raised in the last 24-48 hours, this needed to be posted for some time.

Background from thread by violet, 10-4-2011

Japanese Geologist warned that a disaster was imminent—to no avail

869 Jogan Sanriku earthquake

NOAA Significant Earthquake Database - 8.6 Ms,26,13,12&nd=display

A computer simulated model, 8.4 Mw -

AIST(Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center)

Annual Report on Active Fault and Paleoearthquake Researches No. 10 (2010)

Numerical simulation of the AD 869 Jogan tsunami in Ishinomaki and Sendai plains and Ukedo river-mouth lowland

Yuichi Namegaya, Kenji Satake and Shigeru Yamaki

4.5Mb pdf

Abstract: An unusually large tsunami was generated by the AD 869 Jogan earthquake, off Miyagi prefecture along the Japan Trench. The tsunami brought deposits on the Ishinomaki and Sendai plains, both in Miyagi prefecture, and Ukedo river-mouth lowland of Namie Town, Fukushima prefecture. Horizontal distance between the most inland tsunami deposit and the estimated past coastline is about 3 km in Ishinomaki plain, 3-4 km in Sendai plain, and 1.5 km in Ukedo area. We computed tsunami inundation at these locations from two fault models of interplate earthquakes: one is a 100 km long fault with 10 m slip (Mw=8.3) and the other is a 200 km long fault with 7 m slip (Mw=8.4). We also examined four other fault models with variable fault depths and locations. In the simulation, artificial structures such as breakwaters and reclaimed lands were removed from the present topography, and the coastlines were modified to reproduce the topography at the time of the Jogan earthquake. Comparison of the computed inundation areas with the distribution of tsunami deposits indicate that the source of a 200 km long fault with 7 m slip can reproduce the distribution of the tsunami deposits in both plains and Ukedo river-mouth lowland.

Note the report still gave 8.3 Mw and not 8.4 Mw from the above report...

Feb 27, 2012


Jogan quake report worried utilities

Tsunami alert softened days before 3/11


Just days before the Great East Japan Earthquake, a government panel softened the wording of a report warning that a massive tsunami could strike northeastern Japan after three utilities with nuclear power plants begged it to do so, it has been learned.

According to interviews and documents made available Saturday, staff from Tokyo Electric Power Co., Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power Co. asked the secretariat of the Earthquake Research Committee to alter the draft of the report at a meeting on March 3, 2011.

The report suggested a massive tsunami similar to the one triggered by the Jogan Earthquake in 869 could be spawned off Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures, they said. The Jogan quake had an estimated magnitude of 8.3 and killed about 1,000 people.

A final version of the report has yet to be released in light of the earthquake and tsunami that actually hit the region eight days later, but some members of the committee called the revelation “unbelievable.”

The three utilities asked the secretariat in the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry to change the wording to avoid giving people the “misunderstanding” that massive quakes similar to the Jogan quake actually occurred in the past.

In reply, the secretariat told the three utilities, “We’re not changing the context but we’re going to do something so it may not induce such misunderstanding.”

A few days later the ministry revised the draft. The reworded version said “further study” is required to decide if massive quakes similar to the Jogan quake took place because “appropriate data are insufficient.”


Last study on this, from Wikipedia

Marine Geology

Volume 290, Issues 1–4, 1 December 2011, Pages 46–50

New insights of tsunami hazard from the 2011 Tohoku-oki event

Kazuhisa Goto a, b,
Catherine Chagué-Goff c, d,
Shigehiro Fujino e,
James Goff c,
Bruce Jaffe f,
Yuichi Nishimura g,
Bruce Richmond f,
Daisuke Sugawara b,
Witold Szczuciński h,
David R. Tappin i,
Robert C. Witter j,
Eko Yulianto k

a Planetary Exploration Research Center, Chiba Institute of Technology, Tsudanuma, Chiba 275-0016, Japan
b Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8579, Japan
c Australia-Pacific Tsunami Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
d Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Kirrawee DC, NSW 2232, Australia
e University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan
f US Geological Survey, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060, United States
g Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-0810, Japan
h Institute of Geology, A. Mickiewicz University, Poznań 61-606, Poland
i British Geological Survey, Nottingham, United Kingdom
j Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, OR, 97365, United States
k Indonesian Institute of Science, Jakarta, Indonesia


We report initial results from our recent field survey documenting the inundation and resultant deposits of the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami from Sendai Plain, Japan. The tsunami inundated up to 4.5 km inland but the > 0.5 cm-thick sand deposit extended only 2.8 km (62% of the inundation distance). The deposit however continued as a mud layer to the inundation limit. The mud deposit contained high concentrations of water-leachable chloride and we conclude that geochemical markers and microfossil data may prove to be useful in identifying the maximum inundation limit of paleotsunamis that could extend well beyond any preserved sand layer. Our newly acquired data on the 2011 event suggest that previous estimates of paleotsunamis (e.g. 869 AD Jōgan earthquake and tsunami) in this area have probably been underestimated. If the 2011 and 869 AD events are indeed comparable, the risk from these natural hazards in Japan is much greater than previously recognized.


► The first results of a geological survey following the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami. ► The tsunami inundated and left sediment deposits up to 4.5 km inland. ► 62% of the inundation distance was covered with sand. ► The 869 AD Jōgan earthquake and tsunami have probably been underestimated.


Tsunami deposits;
Tohoku-oki tsunami;

edit on 5-2-2013 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

NOAA Significant Earthquake Database - 8.6 Ms

Since this is well into the 9 Mw range, and the tsunami debris matches the distance, one has to wonder why they were surprised by the 9.0 - but then again Fukushima they only allowed for a high mag 7 (?) in the design so how would anyone admit to knowing about the possibility of a mag 9 when advising a mag 7+ ?

None of this however means either that New Zealand will or New Zealand won't have a mag 9 since - and this is what I was trying to get at - you cannot just take the model and apply it somewhere else. Each area is unique.

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:28 AM
Very interesting Earthquake(s)

Magnitude 3.2

Date-Time Tuesday, February 05, 2013 at 10:24:41 UTC Tuesday, February 05, 2013 at 02:24:41 AM at epicenter Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 38.006°N, 115.455°W

Depth 21.5 km (13.4 miles) Region NEVADA

Distances 42 km (26 miles) NNE (22°) from Tempiute, NV 50 km (31 miles) NNW (336°) from Hiko, NV 50 km (31 miles) SSW (212°) from Hot Creek, NV 93 km (58 miles) WNW (298°) from Caliente, NV 203 km (126 miles) N (354°) from Las Vegas, NV

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 1 km (0.6 miles); depth +/- 0.5 km (0.3 miles)

Parameters NST= 38, Nph= 27, Dmin=74 km, Rmss=0.2 sec, Gp=122°, M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=9
Source Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno Event ID nn00401855

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:03 PM
Almost lost the plot with LDEO again

Went to get the lines for Garfagnana, Italy (5.0) and Nakagawa, Hokkaido (7.0) and went to the bottom of the list and holy cow the first quake was the last one I downloaded on the 29th Jan

got it by the skin of my teeth

Anyway here is the latest data plotted on interactive map
Its an alternative to to USGS's global 4.5+

Surprisingly LDEO have the Nakagawa quake closer to NIED/JMA's location that I expected, given they only go in 0.25 degree points in the Lat/Long co-ordinates

USGS got their thick pants on again (covering their ass)
lat = 42.812 +/- 8.0
lon = 143.078 +/- 9.6

Haven't completed the Network plots table yet but looks like the epi-centre was "by the airport"

edit on 5-2-2013 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

new topics

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in