Peru-Chile Could Experience Megathrust Quake as Six Quakes Over 6 Mag Strike Area

reply to post by muzzy


Could you explain in a little more detail what you are trying to show with the map of quake locations. I am not really up in all this but I do read these threads and love the topic......Thank you.

reply to post by muzzy


Well a couple things to comment on:

1) I like your spreadsheet graph, but you are not including the first 6+Mag quakes in Peru which as a whole caused me to make this thread and sound the alarm. Lol, now that's not nice.

2) Looks like you're going to have to redo it anyways. The USGS just revised that 7.6 UP to a 7.7 Mww
earthquake.usgs.gov...

And to me that means it's one tick closer to the 8.2, now a mere .5 magnitude away, and even better fitting the "high 7" description I warned against. I agree with the revision, frankly because I was wondering why the counts at LVC registered 4e7 on the 8.2, and still a whopping 2e7 on the 7.7. I was thinking more like 7.8 or 7.9, but ok, I guess that's that. I figured LVC clipped, so the 8.2 might have actually registered higher, had LVC station been able to handle it fully without overload.

The bottom line is that brings those two quakes even closer to spelling "foreshocks." The rules have been broken even more clearly with that revision. No question anymore, at least in my mind.

But will a SUPER megathrust hit? I hope the hell not for Chile's sakes- or even Peru's sakes, if it happens there. Might surprise us and slam mid to southern Chile, too. And you all see that activity headed southbound.

Update on fault activity- it's still agitated, producing more quakes, and lots of 5 mags. That 5+ near Santiago was deeper but right on the slab depth profile me thinks.

Ain't no telling where we go from here.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


TA, I want to apologize for saying that puterman predicted the quake first and I was WRONG. You did!
You should be nominated for being an ATS EQ Moderator! You the MAN. :h ail:

now I feel real childish, and I'm going to walk away.

TrueAmerican, If I am living in Chile right now, I would feel very scared at the possibility of a quake between 9.4-9.6 Mw to hit along that fault line(Nazca plate subducting under South American plate) since you just mentioned that the previous two big quakes (8.2 and 7,7 Mw) could be just merely foreshocks to the main event. What would be your advice for people who have the finances in Chile? Move inland to an area far from the coasts? Vacation to neighboring countries for at least a week, until things calm down?

lol, thanks violator, but I am used to being ignored and scorned away as "that whacky TA." And I can't blame em. I don't get warnings right sometimes... Look at the Cascadia situation. I warned on that, and nothing more materialized. Yet. Besides, who is an expert on the Fragile Earth? I mean really. It eludes us, but we are getting better. Volcano and weather prediction are two examples- they have both come a LONG way.

reply to post by Menedes567


Option #2 doesn't look too bad. But frankly I question why anyone would want to live there- I mean yeah it's beautiful- but with that beauty comes a price they seem to pay all too often. I understand there are those with no real choice. And to that I say, if you have the resources, then help those that don't in their time of need. A lot of houses were just destroyed, and many injured. If a bigger one strikes, the situation is going to be bad. Real bad. So help if you can.

reply to post by SubTruth

I can't explain it any more than I have.
Look at the graph and the high points, then how the aftershocks after each highpoint gradually drop down like an avalanche, thats one series of colour, then the next high point does the same, but its a new colour.
Read the graph then the key (text) then the map. You can see the graph is in clusters and so are the colours on the map.
Just looking at the map doesn't do anything, they all go together.
Or open the larger interactive map by clicking the map image, once in Google Maps there is a menu on the left hand side, scroll down and you will see whats on the map in time sequence.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Its quite simple, Geology Dept of the University of Chile doesn't do Peru.
All my data for Chile is GUC.

muzzy
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Its quite simple, Geology Dept of the University of Chile doesn't do Peru.
All my data for Chile is GUC.

Yeah well the Fragile Earth doesn't care who does what, where the borders are, or what language the parasites speak. It's all connected, on the same fault, and the events that have happened speak for themselves. In the context of this situation, then your data is incomplete, imo.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


In the context of your Topic Title it may be only part of the overall scenerio, only time will tell.
Your USGS data is also very incomplete, where are the 1017 events offshore Tarapaca that have occurred?

Using ANSS (because USGS don't have a data search page any more)
catalog=ANSS
start_time=2014/03/16,00:00:00
end_time=2014/04/05,20:00:00
minimum_magnitude=0.0
maximum_magnitude=10
delta (circle)=0 km to 350 km (radius) from (-19.965,-70.814)
results = 191 events

thats hardly enough data to form an opinion on anything

TrueAmerican, thank you for your work and dedication!

If the 8.2 and 7.7 really are foreshocks, what would be a "sign" the main one is coming? Another 7+? 7.5? And when should this sign happen, at latest? 1 week, maybe 2?
Thank you!

I know there was a 5. whatever I posted about earlier today as I was given the heads up by an online friend who lives in Santiago, which is south of the original 8 & 7, and he felt it. I have been keeping an eye during the day and have noticed there have been other 5's and less opposite Santiago. I have now found this one..

EDIS Number: EQ-20140405-397115-CHL Common Alerting Protocol
Magnitude: 3.5
Mercalli scale: 1
Date-Time [UTC]: 05 April, 2014 at 09:29:08 UTC
Local Date/Time: Saturday, April 05, 2014 at 09:29 in the moorning at epicenter
Coordinate: 33° 58.200, 72° 18.600
Depth: 24 km (14.91 miles)
Hypocentrum: Shallow depth
Class: Minor
Region: South-America
Country: Chile
Location: 76.27 km (47.39 miles) S of San Antonio, Chile
Source: EMSC

I know it's small and shallow, however it is south again of Santiago. Does this more or less confirm that the fault line is indeed weakening and migrating southwards as has now been suspected by our more qualified posters?
Also, does this mean there is more pressure being released thus averting a 'biggy'? (which I don't buy atm) Or can we indeed expect something bigger than the 8.6 but not necessarily in it's original location.

Ta very muchly chaps.
Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by angelchemuel

There are always earthquakes down near Valparaiso and Santaigo, you can follow the whole of Chile GUC events on the maps on GSAIM since 27/03/2014. They are not necessarily part of this series (extension south)
Chile has no short of earthquakes on a daily basis, not as active as Japan or New Zealand, but they do get a few ...........
another Chile map page using data from GUC ( needs updating of March I know). Goes back to Jan 2012 by hovering then clicking the relevant Chile tab up top of that page.
2012 page has historical data (maps) 2000-2012 M5+ and M6+

reply to post by muzzy


Thanks for your reply and links muzzy. Much appreciated.
So what you're saying is that although the follow up quake (7), is cause for concern, it doesn't mean we can expect something bigger then?
That the 8.6 was it? Nothing to see here...move on so to speak?
You know I value your opinion

Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by angelchemuel

No, just that there are quakes in that area already, and pre the first Tarapaca one on the 16th. (which wasn't the first anyway, as there were quakes of M5 in this current offshore area back in January/Feb 2014)
A M9 could hit at any time, lets just say its more likely here, than say offshore East Cape, New Zealand
I think the GUC data is VERY important, especially for forecasting, as USGS doesn't seem to go down below 4.5 "publicly"
Keep an eye on the osTarapaca map on a daily basis on GSAIM, if we see 10+ mag 3's in one spot that could be a warning sign of something bigger, even volcanic eruption if its up in the hills (Andes)
Quakes of this Series current sizes often lead up to a volcano erupting inland.
And always keep in mind 2010 wasn't all that long ago when that 8.8 struck off Concepcion, if you take the long term geological view that is just a few seconds ago, and add that to TA's view of the whole Peru-Chile Trench Fault Subduction Zone as one unit, then these could probably be considered aftershocks of the 8.8

Where are you getting 8.6 for this April quake from?
Everyone has it as 8.2

muzzy
And always keep in mind 2010 wasn't all that long ago when that 8.8 struck off Concepcion, if you take the long term geological view that is just a few seconds ago, and add that to TA's view of the whole Peru-Chile Trench Fault Subduction Zone as one unit, then these could probably be considered aftershocks of the 8.8

lol. Well in that case, they all could be considered aftershocks of the 9.5 in 1960. And if that's the case, then they're all STILL breaking the rules, and ALL OF THEM could be foreshocks to a 9.9.

But then that begs the question, what was the 9.5 an aftershock from? An 11 thousands or millions of years ago, maybe when a piece of the Andes formed and were pushed up by a catastrophic movement of the Nazca Plate into the South American Plate?

Yup, that whacky TA.

See what I mean? HAHA. Ignored. Look at hour 3. But they don't matter. My friends here matter.

TrueAmerican
My friends here matter.

And I hope you know we love you. (Even in all your crazy glory.)

Thurisaz
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

I am more concerned about Japan. I read earlier that they had a 4 (which is small) however, due to the issues at Fukishima... any quake is cause for concern.

I am also concerned about volcanic activity... volcano in that area has become active.

I feel a lot of this activity is a direct consequence of the oil and gas exploration and drilling in the North & South Pacific Oceans.

oh well... oil and gas are so important! /sarcasm.

I agree. Japan is a much more dangerous system right now. However, let's be realistic here. Clearly, the shills and stooges are focusing all the hype and hoopla on Chile, and obviously so is the media, and it's getting bombarded right now. Add in the fact that people are supposedly making "predictions" and "getting them right" in regards to Chile...

Someone is trying to make it as dangerous as Japan. Still, Japan is much more brittle regardless of what happens next in Chile. Plus, you have the nuclear reactors.

muzzy
reply to post by magnum1188

 

The current activity March-April has a Fault length of 235km, not enough for a Mag 9.
But it could start to unzip north or south at any time.
that 7.6Mw was 36km from the southern most event in the series so far, which is what is of concern, why is it not in the main bunch?.
The 2010 M8.8 aftershocks were quite widespread, over 780km Fault length, based on just the M5+ aftershocks over 2 months
goo.gl...

Just keep in mind, that these same "experts" that make up these rules for "length of fault zone = magnitude", claimed the fault zone in Japan that made the 2011 earthquake was not capable of producing an earthquake over 8.3 magnitude.

The people making up these "rules" don't know a thing in reality. It's all BS.

I am not saying a fault that small can make such a huge quake or not, that's not really the point. I am just saying that we need to stop spreading around all of this nonsense absolutism in all of these threads.

The length of a fault does not have a predetermined built-in limit for an earthquake magnitude. That is proven by the 2011 Japanese earthquake. I was telling people this here well before that, and I was proven right by that earthquake. Here we go though, where we still endlessly have these false absolutist claims all over this site. All coming from these false claims from "scientists", who have no clue what they are really talking about.

TrueAmerican

muzzy
And always keep in mind 2010 wasn't all that long ago when that 8.8 struck off Concepcion, if you take the long term geological view that is just a few seconds ago, and add that to TA's view of the whole Peru-Chile Trench Fault Subduction Zone as one unit, then these could probably be considered aftershocks of the 8.8

lol. Well in that case, they all could be considered aftershocks of the 9.5 in 1960. And if that's the case, then they're all STILL breaking the rules, and ALL OF THEM could be foreshocks to a 9.9.

But then that begs the question, what was the 9.5 an aftershock from? An 11 thousands or millions of years ago, maybe when a piece of the Andes formed and were pushed up by a catastrophic movement of the Nazca Plate into the South American Plate?

Yup, that whacky TA.

See what I mean? HAHA. Ignored. Look at hour 3. But they don't matter. My friends here matter.

edit on Sat Apr 5th 2014 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

That 9.5 (actually was always called a 9.6 until they did their usual fiddling) is the biggest earthquake with the Richter.

A 9.5 Richter scale, is really nothing that unusual historically, even in very contemporary times. It might be the biggest in say, the last 200 years or so. That's it.

Geologically, there is nothing really all that unique or special even about that earthquake from even the last few centuries.

Red Cloak
A 9.5 Richter scale, is really nothing that unusual historically, even in very contemporary times. It might be the biggest in say, the last 200 years or so. That's it.

Geologically, there is nothing really all that unique or special even about that earthquake from even the last few centuries.

A 9.5 Richter scale, is really very unusual historically, considering one has never ever even been recorded.

The 9.5 Chile in 1960 was a 9.5 Mw, not Richter. People claiming they are seismologists/geologists know the difference. I guess that settles that, huh.

That 1960 earthquake isn't anything unusual in geologic terms.

Really????...no really??

Rainbows
Jane