An Experiment in Alternative Methods of Earthquake Prediction

reply to post by pynner


Magnitude 5.4 - OFF THE COAST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2008 November 28 13:42:19 UTC
10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region OFF THE COAST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Distances 222 km (138 miles) W (272°) from Petrolia, CA
224 km (139 miles) W (264°) from Ferndale, CA

Thanks, pynner... I just got online to post the offshore NorCal EQ. Two things: the EQ was on the dreaded Petrolia fault (there is a lot more on it previously posted in this thread), and notice the depth of this EQ.

Magnitude 3.0 - NEVADA
2008 November 28 09:09:05 UTC

Magnitude 3.0 - BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
2008 November 28 13:31:51 UTC

pynner, if you get photos of those clouds, we'd love to see them. Those "rolling" ones sound fascinating.


[edit on 11/28/08 by kattraxx]

Magnitude 5.8 - OFF THE COAST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2008 November 28 13:42:18 UTC

Just revised by USGS, up to 5.8

I don't know about anyone else, but I believe I'm still getting precursors for this fault.

According to the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Information website it had a preliminary magnitude of 6.2:

wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov...

I'm wondering if the chest and heart pains I've been experiencing all week could be related to this area.

reply to post by mountaindog


Thanks for the info. 6.2 is significant. It seems they then lowered it to 5.2, then back up to 5.8. The location of this EQ is: 40.336°N, 126.981°W

"chest and heart pains"...

Quite possibly, mountaindog. I had some this morning too. Hopefully, that was the main shock and the subsequent EQs will be aftershocks. The Geysers and Pinnacles are still very active, so I'm still watching for more activity in California.

I noticed that they up'd that quake as well.. hmmm.
and at the magical 10k mark.


I did get pics of the rolling clouds... not sure how to post them on here.. if it has to be done through flicker or some such thing, I'll pass.. any other suggestions?


but I didn't get the other earthquake clouds....
I will keep an eye open and my camera handy.

oh.. and those baja ones that are happening are at the base of a volcano.

not
one
line

reply to post by pynner


pynner, I'll u2u my email address to you now. You can send the photos and I'll post them, if you like.

Intriguing information about Baja... more and more often, this seems to be the case.

Just saw this article about an "abnormal" series of EQs in Hot Springs, Arkansas...

Arkansas Quakes Could Offer Warning By JON GAMBRELL, AP
posted: 2 HOURS 47 MINUTES AGOcomments: 41filed under: National News, Natural Disasters News, Science NewsPrintShareText

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Nov. 28) - A series of small earthquakes that rattled central Arkansas in recent weeks could be a sign of something much bigger to come.
By this weekend, seismologists hope to install three measurement devices to gather data about future temblors in the area. That information could show whether the rumbles come from heat-related geological changes or from an undiscovered fault — which could mean a risk of substantial earthquakes in the future.

Edit: Found the story elsewhere...
news.yahoo.com...

pynner, Hot Springs, Arkansas.... "heat related geological changes"... I wonder if anyone has measured the temperatures at the hot springs recently to see if they are significantly higher than 143?

[edit on 11/28/08 by kattraxx]

Mag 3.1 Off the coast of Oregon, 25 Nov 2008.

I noticed this 3.1 quake on the USGS map this morning - did anyone notice it before today?

earthquake.usgs.gov...

reply to post by mountaindog


Great catch, mountaindog... they were sneaking that one on the maps in yellow. I was pretty sure I was getting offshore Oregon precursors when I posted a couple days ago, and I was wondering why nothing happened. We're going to have to keep a close eye on those maps.

3.1
Date-Time Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 05:06:51 UTC
Monday, November 24, 2008 at 08:06:51 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location 43.355°N, 127.745°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region OFF THE COAST OF OREGON

I've had Sierra/Wasatch/New Madrid precursors continuously since last night. The others, I'm still trying to decipher... could be Washington, or thereabouts. Anyone else getting precursors so we can compare notes?

Let's see, the Santa Barbara Channel did hit, but a week outside my posted window.

Magnitude 2.2
Date-Time Friday, November 28, 2008 at 23:50:36 UTC
Friday, November 28, 2008 at 03:50:36 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location 34.252°N, 119.628°W
Depth 0 km (~0 mile) (poorly constrained)
Region SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA

And the Wasatch region has been active too. All the hot spring areas in California still seem active, not to mention Arkansas.

The Tahoe swarm seems to have slowed a bit.

Edit to add: I think it may be southern California into Mexico precursors I'm getting right now. 1:14 pst

[edit on 11/29/08 by kattraxx]

Magnitude 4.1
Date-Time Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 21:14:08 UTC
Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 01:14:08 PM at epicenter

Location 35.970°N, 117.334°W
Depth 2.9 km (1.8 miles)
Region CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
Distances 23 km (14 miles) N (11°) from Searles Valley, CA
23 km (14 miles) N (8°) from Trona, CA
31 km (20 miles) SW (225°) from Telescope Peak, CA

[url=512x384][/img]

I notice that there is wave-form data available on USGS for that Cal 4.1, but no such data is available for the 5.8 off the Cal coast. Considering that wave-form data is what they use to calculate location, depth and magnitude, we have to wonder why they won't release this data for what is a significant quake.

Perhaps they don't want us to know what type of wave forms they are? Or be able to calculate the intensity ourselves? I mean, why not release the data?

But then, as we know, no wave-form data has been available for Nevada quakes for quite a while now. And while the data is usually accessible for land-based Cal quakes, it's ptachy (at best) for offshore ones.

(PS for the grammar purists: I know that "data" is actually the plural of "datum", but these days we usually treat "data" as a singular noun. )

[edit on 30/11/08 by JustMike]

reply to post by mountaindog

Yep, another case of withholding information from you -- the US taxpaying -- public. I am certain that one never appeared in blue, let alone red. But if we look at the very bottom of that data page it reads:

Page Last Modified: November 29, 2008 12:51:25 UTC

Perhaps it should read: "Page held back until:"

And there is no wave-form data available for that quake either. That data has to exist or they could not plot the quake's location or magnitude. Why are they concealing this data??

Maybe, just maybe, with the new Administration you and other US members might be able to get some things changed. Like, get the USGS to actually release data in a timely manner and NOT HOLD THINGS BACK TO SUIT THEIR OWN ENDS!!!!

(Sorry... I'm am REALLY angry at the way they play their dirty games. You in the USA are paying their salaries and for all their work and their facilities and equipment, and their job is to inform you the public about seismic events as fully and as accurately as they can. And they are NOT doing it.)

Mike

I'm just a crazy guy, so what I post is not a prophecy or prediction. I just keep getting a feeling that there's going to be a significant seismic event soon, like in two weeks, and it's related to the next full moon which will be at maximum perigee, and at it's peak orbital inclination, also called a node. Sure, there's no conclusive statistical correlation on the effects to 'prove' this, so clearly I'm just a crazy guy. Any one who thinks I'm doing it to scare people can go right ahead and think that. I feel that if this event does occur, and one person who saw this post took action that saved their life, then maybe I'm not so crazy after all. If nothing happens, I'll happily shut up about any more 'premonitions'. Oh yeah, before I forget, it's the pacific northwest Vancouver, BC/Seattle, Wash. area that I'm going on about.

reply to post by 1rked44

Thanks for posting. It's better to state a prediction and have nothing happen, than to remain silent and then something does... We are glad for any input, by any method. It's all useful data and could help to improve the process of predicting quakes.

And you're not so crazy -- unless we are equally crazy, in which case we are relatively normal to one another It's not like you're saying "it's gonna be a magnitude nine-plus and it'll send a tsunami miles inland, yadda yadda yadda..." People who post such stuff usually have little or no knowledge of seismics, even at a layman's level, and perhaps are more in the game of attention-seeking than anything else. Here, reasonable predictions get listened to, and what you've stated is not beyond the bounds of reason. You've not jumped into the tsunami-prediction business, just said there could be a significant quake, and you've given a fair and not excessive time span of around two weeks. So okay, we have time span, region, and some idea of magnitude. That's enough to count as a prediction.

About your prediction: there is a line of thinking that as the moon has significant effects on large bodies of water and creates the tidal activity we know so well, it is not unreasonable that it would have similar effects on other large bodies of fluid, and magma would fall into that category. ** Therefore, although the empirical research is still very sparse, there could be a correlation between the moon's gravitational influence and seismic activity in areas where near-surface magma is known to exist.

The area you speak of -- in fact that entire sub-sea region -- is known to have two types of seismic activity. The first is related to plate movement, and the second is magma-based. I recall that a major swarm mid-plate in that region was attributed by research scientists to magma effects rather than plate movement.

One reason that I and others here complain about the lack of waveform data for some quakes, is that this data (in expert hands) can help to determine if a quake is "normal" seismic (ie movement), or alternatively magma-induced. We can't get this data for most of the undersea quakes off the West coast of the US (and up into Canada), and that's bothersome. If something is brewing there it would be nice to know.

** Just a thought: large bodies of oil could also be similarly affected, which would be disturbing if they were in seismically-active regions. I wonder if anyone has looked into this?

Anyway thanks for posting and please stay with us. And don't worry if you are wrong in your prediction. The thing is to say what you think and we and others can all deal with the analyses later.

[edit on 30/11/08 by JustMike]

I know it says central California on the USGS map, but the Bakersfield area has always been southern California to me. Either way, this swarm is intriguing because it reminds me so much of the Reno (Mogul) swarm, the frequency and the fairly shallow depths. It also seems to have that creeping pattern seen in the EQ's in the north arctic and the swarm near San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico.

Magnitude 4.1
Date-Time Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 13:03:06 UTC
Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 05:03:06 AM at epicenter

Location 35.967°N, 117.327°W
Depth 2.6 km (1.6 miles)
Region CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
Distances 23 km (14 miles) N (10°) from Trona, CA
23 km (14 miles) NNE (13°) from Searles Valley, CA
31 km (19 miles) SW (224°) from Telescope Peak, CA
50 km (31 miles) NE (39°) from Ridgecrest, CA

Click here for the full list: earthquake.usgs.gov...

reply to post by kattraxx

Yes, it does look a bit "swarmy"... Actually via "edit" I'll amend that. It looks typically like a swarm. Today, Nov 30, there have been 19 quakes already within that small region -- and around 60 since Nov 25! And as for the depths, the mag 2.0 there (event i.d. ci14406292, at 03:35 a.m. local time) is shown with a depth of 0.0. There is a note that's it's "poorly constrained", but all the same it's obviously very shallow.

Also interesting that even this mag 2.0 has wave data provided on the "Scientific and Technical" page. In fact, that's the only data on that page! (However, it's probably the most valuable data.)

You know, maintaining this thread could prove invaluable if there is an inquiry in the future into the "holding back" of data by USGS. Hopefully when the Busheviks are out, there might be a chance to get some action. We have evidence on here that documents suspicious cases of "disappearing" quakes, quakes that are posted hours or even days late, inconsistencies in releasing data, and variations in their data versus those of other sources. (Especially their use of their "default" 10 km depth in cases where others show different. The Iceland quakes of a few months ago also come to mind. The USGS data was at odds with that of the experts in Iceland.) As for the "disappearing" quakes, while it's okay for USGS to state that sometimes there are false readings and the auto-plotted and posted quakes never really happened, and while we can buy that, it's very odd that some areas (like parts of Nevada and over towards Yellowstone) seem to get an awful lot of "non-existent" quakes. It's especially odd when locals (and even local media) report them -- then USGS says they didn't happen! Again, I believe we have examples documented in this thread.

There has to be a reason why they are not consistent in releasing data and their argument that for smaller (seismic) events the data release is limited and that's why there are no waveforms for the Nevada quakes, doesn't really wash. They have this waveform data for small, land-based California quakes and they release it, and so -- especially in the case of US seismic events like in NV and environs -- they should release it too.

It's hard enough for us or anyone else to gather information and try to investigate various methods of quake prediction, without what amounts to the non-scientific methodologies of USGS in respect of what they release. You are living in a seismically active area and over the past several months it's gotten harder and harder for you (and others) to obtain the information you have a right to know. Put bluntly, they are involved in a cover-up.


[edit on 30/11/08 by JustMike]

People, that large quake off Nth Cal bothers me. It seems that it just popped up more-or-less in isolation, with no aftershocks of any note at all. That is very unusual for such a significant seismic energy release in what is a fairly seismically active area:



(Image from USGS. Reproduced for informational and educational purposes.)

This event is on the line at the southern junction of the Juan de Fuca plate, and we have seen a fair number of lesser quakes there in the past. (Several are posted with maps on this thread.)

Are we to believe that there have been no after-shocks in this region as a result of this event? I am very suspicious about this. Put it this way: I didn't even bother posting any prediction that there'd be several quakes in this region following on from this large one. It was plain as day that there ought to be; it would be like putting me in a NASCAR race and "predicting" that I'll crash...

So what's going on? How can such a significant quake occur in a region like this with no aftershocks at all? There should have been at least a couple of mag 4 - range quakes and likely several mag 3's, but there's zilch, zip, nada.

Anyone have any ideas? Or am I the only one who's worried about this? Like, was this a seismic-movement event? USGS reported it as an earthquake. If it wasn't a quake (ie from seismic movement), then about the only other source would be magma/volcanic -- which could (in theory) trigger waves that would measure as around high 5 --low 6 range, but without necessarily having seismic-movement-type aftershocks.


[edit on 30/11/08 by JustMike]

reply to post by JustMike

Since I made that post just over an hour ago, there have been five more quakes in that same area in central/southern Cal. The total as of now (7:46 pm UTC) stands at 24 for today. That's a busy day... And it's far from over as far as local (West Coast US) time goes.

Just in case there have been any aftershocks following the Mag 5.8 quake off-coast California (mentioned earlier), but their public posting has been "delayed", I am posting this map to document the current "official" state of affairs according to USGS:



(This image from USGS is posted for educational and informational purposes.)

Note that the date and time are shown on the map.

Mike