Quake Watch 2011

reply to post by PuterMan


2011 is going to be one of the most active years for seismic events. I have heard many psychics predict this on various shows and the internet

reply to post by punctual


Hi punctual, I have answered you on my analysis thread. See my reply here

reply to post by Robin Marks

It's not just the energy. It's totals, frequency, and location that matters. I'm curious about the total amount of energy released in Arkansas.

Yes I do agree with you, but that is a local consideration. Location is very important as the rock structure affects the end result of the earthquakes and as you are well aware the intensity of the effects is very definitely governed by locality.

Sometimes you can be a bit harsh. It's best to say nothing sometimes. Not that I know anything about that. Here's a good quote to keep in mind while you investigate ideas. Sometimes the idea may be incorrect, but it still may help further your understanding to know where the thought came from.

I can be harsh, yes I will be the first to admit that. It is rarely intended and most often just the way I am - frequently overbearing, often arrogant, not one to suffer fools gladly. I also lose my temper quite quickly and much caution has to be applied to posting sometimes in order not to be banned. Actually I am not too bad when you get to know me and my bark is worse than my bite - unless I am annoyed! Just ignore it if I am harsh - it is the way I am and not directed at the recipient usually.

Albert Einstein wrote, "I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research."

Unfortunately Einstein often relied too much on intuition and inspiration and chose to ignore the practical and experimentation.

The problem with imaginings is that they are often wrong. But that doesn't make the entire exercise invalid.

This is true

You can't research an unknown if you never asking yourself "what if"... That's the creative part of science and those that can only imagine, can still become awesome science fiction writers if nothing else.

This is also true BUT at the end of the day irrespective of all the imaginings which may lead you in the right direction you still have to get the point across to others. You can imagine as much as you wish, but if you are unable to impart those imaginings and to back up the results of them in a manner that others can understand, you have failed in your mission and should be a science fiction writer - problem is that this also requires your audience to understand.

Looking at the incidence of earthquakes on a global scale is not as you rightly point out the best way to go about it. There are however two considerations here.

First, in an internet situation, the average person spends but a few seconds on a page. It is not the ideal medium and in preference this sort of analysis should be somewhere where a wider audience can appreciate it and understand the points, but that requires publication in a journal and as you know only too well Robin, we just are not going to get down that road.

Second, to do all that determination for each coherent earthquake region is a mind boggling amount of work, mainly because one would need to go down to the Mag 4 and Mag 3 earthquakes to get a fuller picture and this information is not always available.

I rest my something or rather - not sure where all that came from.

I've just seen a thread about a Norwegian seismic reading www.abovetopsecret.com...

The op would like to know if it is normal or not.
Thought I'd come ask here

reply to post by muzzy


Hope Moorfnz is ok....usually one of the first here when one goes down around Christchurch.
This morning's quake even made news in Australia: here

Looking at the usgs map this morning, quakes seem to be more spread throughout the world than usual with the ones in the middle east and a couple in Africa. But the NZ quake from this morning isn't on there. That annoys me with usgs.

reply to post by zenius


All good here, thank Zenius I had power off for most of the morning (scheduled maintenance) so while I've felt the 2 large ones I couldn't TELL anyone LOL how frustrating!!!

I was on the eighth floor of the Chemistry Building when the 3.9 hit this morning. It felt worse than the 5.1, which, thanks to a heavy night of making homebrew last night I mostly slept through.

It's been a shaky old day here, but none of them have been particularly disturbing , for me. Unfortunately one of our dogs is affected though and he's been cuddling his mum all morning, I've heard.

reply to post by aorAki


Long time no post Aoraki Glad you're not too shaken by this morning's events. Was but a faint rumble here inland with the now-familiar house creak to follow.

reply to post by boo1981


Hi boo1981 I have replied.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Appears to be a sick siesmo.

OK guys get this, a world event happened and every sismo picked up an earthquake! Do you guys think its harp? I really don't get how you guys missed this one........

never mind it has been downgraded to wind noise

Side note.... I have been super busy the last few days, has the west coast been bouncing lately? Equake showing a decent amount of 2-3 mag quakes from Alaska down to Cali.

101 years, 101 graphs Mag 7+

had these laying around so thought I'd put them together on one page.

compare month by month year by year.

the perception may be that 2011 is going to be heavy with Mag 7+'s based on 4 already in January, but its not unpresedented.

In the month of January

2006 also had 4
2001 had 5
1972 had 4
1956 had 5
1922 had 5
1916 had 4

probaly means nothing at all, but it was fun doing it

Originally posted by MoorfNZ
reply to post by aorAki

 

Long time no post Aoraki

Glad you're not too shaken by this morning's events. Was but a faint rumble here inland with the now-familiar house creak to follow.

Good to hear it wasn't too bad for you, Moorf.

I figure that a lot of the time I needn't post as things have already been said well enough, anyway

reply to post by PuterMan


Don't know where to ask this of you so I'll ask here.

This is part 3 of a 12 part video series by John Moore:

www.youtube.com...

In it he talks about earth subsidence/major quakes and the water bulge at the equator purportedly holding many cubic miles of water. He mentions that sea level at the standard measurement location in Cornwall England can be as much as 450 FEET between that mean average sea level and various points on the equatorial bulge.

He asserts that if there's a dramatic pole shift, the bulge will slosh very destructively over coastal areas many hundreds of feet up.

I'm not sure if he asserts that such will exascerbate or cause quakes as well.

Me may say that a dramatic pole shift would cause quakes which could exascerbate the sloshing effect.

He asserts that quite a number of senior retired/retiring Navy officers have confirmed such to him and he offers a "NAVY Map" of the usual New Madrid facilitated Gulf of Mexico reaching the Great Lakes as well as Nevada and most of Utah being underwater etc. etc.

My questions to you are:

1. What are your thoughts of the quake potential from a pole shift?

2. What are your thoughts on the New Madrid system resulting in a long wide arm of the Gulf of Mexico reaching the Great Lakes. Seems like there's more than a dozen diverse sources asserting such a future. Certainly some Christian prophetic sources agree . . . along with the Hopi elders and a number of occultic/psychi sorts.

3. What is your awareness of how much water might be in such an equatorial bulge? How credible are his assertions on such scores?

4. Do you know anyone else on ATS who might be well able to respond to such questions from a professional standpoint but with a somewhat open mind?

5. IIRC he may also assert that there's some galactic gravity sorts of effects looming in our near future that may trigger or exascerbate such things as well. Do you have any perspective on such assertions?

6. Would the undersea vulnerable side of the Canary Islands volcano hazard being shaken loose by an eruption or quake influence a significant portion of the equatorial bulge in the ATlantic? Could that trigger or help trigger a pole shift?

7. HOw much would massive movements of such cubic miles of water influence the earth's wobble and/or quake hazards and if so, how far away?

Of course, I'd be interested in anyone answering these questions but I'd most respect your answers.

I'm also seeking more information about todays Global Seismic event. Apparently EVERY seismograph in the world is registering activity. Coincidentally, or not, the graph that supposedly measures HAARP frequencies is saturated as well. Same timing.. What on earth is going on?

One of the first guys to notice made a video.
I've put the videos here globalnewsviews.blogspot.com...

It's more then just Norway. It's the whole world!

reply to post by PuterMan


Thank you for taking the time to look at that thread. Although i have a very active interest in Earthquakes i am still trying to understand how to read seismographs

reply to post by muzzy


Thanks for that Muzzy. Are there any years which had no 7+ in January? Just curious. There are so few years with 4 or more.

reply to post by GamaRay


First let me assure you that despite the fact that all the seismos are ringing this is not an uncommon event. The quake showing on the helicorder on the 13th Jan was this one.

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-01-13T16:16:41.000Z,-20.62250,168.45900,7.0000,9.0000,Loyalty Islands. New Caledonia

From magnitude 6 upwards this can show around the world, depending in the location and depth. Last year a 6.3 600km deep at Acre in Brazil send the recorders crazy but generally if there is a 7+ anywhere in the world expect the recorders to go black.

If you take at look at this page in the QVS blog you will see links to various articles that explain how this works, and in particular I would recommend this page on LISS because I put it together - not, because it deals specifically with the phenomenon that you saw on the LISS recorders.

Something odd here

The listings show a 4.9 in Maderia but the EMSC data is:

ML 3.8
Region MADEIRA ISLANDS, PORTUGAL REGION
Date time 2011-01-20 12:51:36.0 UTC
Location 34.92 N ; 16.31 W
Depth 10 km
Distances 715 km NW Safi (pop 288,163 ; local time 12:51:36.6 2011-01-20)
250 km N Machico (pop 12,567 ; local time 12:51:36.6 2011-01-20)
205 km N Camacha (pop 8,635 ; local time 12:51:36.6 2011-01-20)

Edit: Listing for EMSC KML data downloaded

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-01-20T12:51:39.800Z,34.88000,-16.20000,4.9000,40.0000,MADEIRA ISLANDS PORTUGAL REGION

Edit:

Phase data is reading like a 4.9



www.emsc-csem.org...

It just got updated to a 3.8 in the lists
Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-01-20T12:51:36.000Z,34.92000,-16.31000,3.8000,10.0000,MADEIRA ISLANDS PORTUGAL REGION

I don't think I believe them!

reply to post by PuterMan


Indeed.
Its not as if EMSC have converted it to Mw either.

Looking at Spain they have 4.5 www.ign.es...

but Portugal only have 3.4 www.meteo.pt...

my Portugese and Spainish isn't very good so not sure what type of magnitude they use, presuming its ML

big difference though

Originally posted by zenius
reply to post by muzzy

 

Thanks for that Muzzy. Are there any years which had no 7+ in January? Just curious. There are so few years with 4 or more.

Are you on Dialup? takes a while for the graphs to load, they should start loading at the top though.
My broadband is starting to slow down, near the end of the month, we have a cap on usage here, reverts to Dialup when you pass the max.
If it gets stuck loading try clicking Refresh and the missing graphs come on.
4th graph down 2008, no 7's in Jan.
there are quite a few years actually.
45to47south.wordpress.com...

It should be noted ( and I will put a note on the page too) that the data is preliminary and only the period 1949 to 1962 have been revised with extra data out of the Centennial List from USGS, which adds approx 2-3 per year.

I should get on with that revision, the overall 100 year picture is skewed high towards the 2000's because of it.