Quake Watch 2011

Magnitude mb 5.1
Region KEP. MENTAWAI REGION, INDONESIA
Date time 2011-08-03 14:35:01.0 UTC
Location 3.49 S ; 100.04 E
Depth 10 km
Distances 248 km W Bengkulu (pop 309,712 ; local time 21:35:01.1 2011-08-03)
219 km SW Sungaipenuh (pop 95,913 ; local time 21:35:01.1 2011-08-03)
Global view
Source parameters not yet reviewed by a seismologist

Source: www.emsc-csem.org...

reply to post by PuterMan


I'll look into it.
I know that the location was shifted from Lyttelton to the other side of the Port Hills.

I seen this one yesterday when I was doing January revisions
Ref, Lat, Long, UTC, Depth, Mag
3448396, -38.39383, 177.9301, 2011/1/16 19.21:10, 19, 1.831ML revised down from 4.205ML

Thats quite a drop in magnitude
I'm seeing one or two quakes disappearing per day ( 4 for that day) it looks like they may be shuffling the reference numbers around when revising

reply to post by Aromaz


when related to the 100mtr tidalwave... my guess somewere in the atlantic.... how much of the canari island was slided into sea.... canari= 7 islands and beyond the gate of hercule (gibraltar)

sorry off topic :-)

reply to post by intergalactic fire


Strangely enough I already have such a graph. but it is 1930 to 2010. You can take a look at it - PDF - here

I also just happen to have about my person a graph of 1960 to 2010



If these are not what you are looking for please let me know. I shall eventually be publishing a rolling 12 months graph from 1930 through to 2011 but that is a huge task as it is 960 graphs! I might make them span 10 years. They would be in a format similar to this one (PDF) I did but have not kept up with - yet.

As i said I have data back to 1900 - using the centennial catalogue from whence these were all derived up to 2001, and of course ANSS thereafter.

reply to post by Aromaz


Off the coast of Ireland....no hang on Santorini.....or was it Spain? Ireland of course, has to be!

1 In the Mediterranean

1.1 Andalusia
1.2 Black Sea
1.3 Thera (Santorini)
1.4 Helike
1.5 Turkey
1.6 Near Cyprus
1.7 Middle East
1.8 Malta
1.9 Sicily
1.10 Sardinia
1.11 Spartel Bank
1.12 Troy

2 Maghreb

2.1 Morocco

3 In the Atlantic Ocean

3.1 Azores Islands
3.2 Canary Islands, Madeira and Cape Verde
3.3 Northern Spain
3.4 Irish Sea
3.5 Great Britain
3.6 Ireland
3.7 North Sea
3.8 Denmark
3.9 Finland
3.10 Sweden

4 Americas

4.1 Bolivia
4.2 Mexico
4.3 Cuba

5 Other locations

5.1 Antarctica
5.2 Indonesia/Sundaland
5.3 North Pole

Source: Wikipedia

The ones I put up I had heard of. I had no idea there were so many!!!

reply to post by Aromaz


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quite a lot been happening down under in the last 3 hours

2011-08-03 22:52:20.0
40min ago 0.11 S 125.12 E 60 mb 5.3 MOLUCCA SEA 2011-08-03 23:16
2011-08-03 22:48:16.0
44min ago 5.14 S 148.18 E 60 mb 5.2 NEW BRITAIN REGION, P.N.G. 2011-08-03 23:14
2011-08-03 22:39:28.0
53min ago 5.12 S 148.10 E 46 mb 5.7 NEW BRITAIN REGION, P.N.G.
2011-08-03 21:44:10.1
1hr 49min ago 18.27 S 178.00 W 500 M 4.7 FIJI REGION 2011-08-03 22:11
2011-08-03 20:39:41.0
2hr 54min ago 16.24 S 167.92 E 204 mb 5.1 VANUATU
Magnitude mb 5.2
Region NORTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA
Date time 2011-08-03 20:02:19.0 UTC
Location 1.02 N ; 98.72 E
Depth 84 km

from
www.emsc-csem.org...

Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by PuterMan


Pardon me, somewhat off-topic, somewhat related - but interesting.
Atlantis - Only thing we know for sure is; We do not know.

One reference from Plato is "Beyond the Gates of Hercules"
Such could be the promontories at the entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar. (My first vote)
- Then I woud say the area within the Bermuda Triangle (Undersea structures)

Here is a nice link to amazing discoveries.
www.timeenoughforlove.org...

It could also refer to the pilars found in Ephesus (My second Vote)
- in this case my vote will go for Santorini / Crete area.

Whichever, in answer to the question of Tsunami responsible for sinking of Atlantis;
No, I do not believe so.

Personally I would rather suspect a major earthquake was responsible; one that was in the range of 9.5 to 12 and that was most likely in the area around Cuba. Such quake caused the whole tectonic plate to 'drop' under water. Could be Caymans or SW from Bermuda. Now, all of this might indicate South America and in particular the Caribean might have been "Atlantis". Of course there are also the references to major Asteroid impacts around 1200 BC over the Atlantic. For now, I leave it to the (Physical) researchers and read their reports!

Some of the leading researchers on this area (Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig) suspects that Cuba were a few times sunken under sea and rose again above sea level - all due to tectonic plate movements! Jumping ball like!

reply to post by PuterMan


Thanks a lot,
they will sure help and let me continue to study some more, thanks!

The first graph is the type i am looking for(the pdf)
i was wondering if there is an annual graph like this and instead of the counts, the magnitudes and energy levels?
I know its a lot of input data, with 150-250 6+ each year.
If you know such graphs are somewhere available, that would be a big help, i understand its lot of work and a lot to ask, dont worry.

Maybe i will get me a copy of matlab or if you recommand me some other software?

btw. did you make those graphs(pdf)?

thanks again

another small quake in the Pisgah Crater area

Magnitude
1.9
Date-Time
Thursday, August 04, 2011 at 07:22:37 UTC
Thursday, August 04, 2011 at 12:22:37 AM at epicenter
Location
34.710°N, 116.282°W
Depth
5.5 km (3.4 miles)
Region
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Distances
11 km (7 miles) W (263°) from Ludlow, CA
40 km (25 miles) WNW (291°) from Bagdad, CA
54 km (34 miles) NNW (341°) from Twentynine Palms Base, CA
66 km (41 miles) N (11°) from Yucca Valley, CA
66 km (41 miles) NNW (343°) from Twentynine Palms, CA
191 km (119 miles) SSW (211°) from Las Vegas, NV
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 0.4 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 1.3 km (0.8 miles)
Parameters
Nph= 24, Dmin=12 km, Rmss=0.25 sec, Gp= 61°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=0
Source
California Integrated Seismic Net:
USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR
Event ID
ci10987373

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Originally posted by PuterMan

Question for Muzzy!

These quakes are as they were posted in Feb. The GeoNet one has always been a mystery as USGS and EMSC never registered it, but instead has one nearly 30 minutes later

EQ ID,Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,M-Type,Energy,No Of Rept Stns,Depth(Km),Location,Revised
3468565g,2011-02-21T23:13:30.642Z,-37.83740,176.18683,6.3000,ML,177827941003.9,5,169.2312,Oropi,True
209903,2011-02-21T23:51:41.000Z,-43.53000,172.76000,6.3000,mb,177827941003.9,5,6.0000,SOUTH ISLAND OF NEW ZEALAND,True
b0001igm,2011-02-21T23:51:42.000Z,-43.58340,172.70120,6.3000,Mi,177827941003.9,0,5.0000,South Island of New Zealand,True
3468575g,2011-02-21T23:51:42.016Z,-43.58134,172.70192,4.8550,ML,1209205182.9,0,5.0000,Heathcote Valley,True

Fast forward to today

NEIC has it down graded to 6.1

DateTime, Lat, Lon, Depth, Magnitude, MagType
21/02/2011 23:51:42, -43.583, 172.68, 5.9, 6.1, Mw

Extracted from Feb figures obtainable from ANSS/NEIC

Now in the GeoNet database we have: (I have remove dozens of lines to make it readable)
*Note this was a 6.3 when originally published*

2011-02-21T23:13:30.887Z
-37.82943
176.19324
165.7717
from location
3.348ML

*Note this was a 4.8 when originally published*

2011-02-21T23:51:42.350Z
-43.58286
172.6797
5.9529
6.343ML

*Note this did not exist when originally published*

2011-02-21T23:53:32.792Z
-43.56113
172.72519
7.3649
4.84ML

The 5.7 @ 3 minutes after the one above has gone.

magma.geonet.org.nz quakeml query (Returns the xml coding above)

So the question. We have moaned about USGS downgrading quakes from what GeoNet have said, yet here we have big changes from GeoNet.

Taking the 6.3

GN -43.58286, 172.6797, 6.343
US -43.58340, 172.7012, 6.300
EM -43.53000, 172.7600, 6.300

Extracted from above.

What we have ended up with (aside from the < to 6.1) is figures that are very similar.

Would it be fair to say that actually USGS get the locations about right? I know we have siad there are big differences sometimes but I am wondering if there are GeoNet inaccuracies that are later fixed.

The first thing I notice is the refernce numbers you listed are followed by a "g", this indicates they were listed on the "Recent Quakes" page, and it is mostly those that get changed or deleted. Just about every earthquake in January 2011 that I have been through up to the 16th has been revised one way or the other, whether up, down .... or sideways (as in relocated, even though the magnitude stayed the same).

The data I had for the 6.3 that I downloaded that day was

REF:3468575
LAT/LONG: -43.59798, 172.71414
UTC: 2011/2/21 23:51:42
NZDT: 2011/2/22 12:51:42
DEPTH: 5km
MAG: 6.3ML
Tunnel Rd, Lyttelton 8082, New Zealand

The latest data I downloaded on 26/6 was

REF: 3468575
LAT/LONG: -43.58286, 172.6797
UTC: 2011/2/21 23:51:42
MAG: 6.343ML
DEPTH: 6KM
Rapaki Rd, Heathcote Valley 8022, New Zealand

On the day, that
3468565g,2011-02-21T23:13:30.642Z,-37.83740,176.18683,6.3000,ML,177827941003.9,5,169.2312,Oropi,True

I have as
3468565, -37.8374, 176.18683, 2011/2/21 23:13:31, 169, 3.338ML, SE of Pyes Pa, Bay of Plenty
which is now revised (26/6)
3468565, -37.82943, 176.19324, 2011 /2/21 23:13:31, 166, 3.348ML

I think in the heat of the moment Geonet got their numbers crossed giving that 3468565 the 6.3 magnitude and the 3468575 a 4.8

When you download a days worth of quakes you will notice the reference numbers jump in leaps and bounds sometimes, this means there was a quake and they gave it a number, but not sure where or how big it was.
Thats where the revisions come into play later, they fill in the blanks.

* This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 6.3
Date-Time

* Thursday, August 04, 2011 at 13:51:36 UTC
* Friday, August 05, 2011 at 01:51:36 AM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 48.784°N, 154.835°E
Depth 49 km (30.4 miles)
Region KURIL ISLANDS
Distances 230 km (142 miles) SSW of Severo-Kuril'sk, Kuril Islands, Russia
542 km (336 miles) SSW of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Russia
659 km (409 miles) NE of Kuril'sk, Kuril Islands
1907 km (1184 miles) NE of TOKYO, Japan
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 15.8 km (9.8 miles); depth +/- 8.5 km (5.3 miles)
Parameters NST=481, Nph=487, Dmin=522.1 km, Rmss=0.69 sec, Gp= 47°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=6
Source

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

Event ID usc00058wy

reply to post by muzzy


Yes I do notice the gaps - and it happens on USGS and EMSC as well.

As regards the 'g' all quakes coming in from magma.geonet in a quake.xml file seem to have this designation, but then the data I am getting is all recent.

The M9 flare which is going to gobble up 2 more on the way hits tomorrow at 14:00 UTC with a spread of + or - 7 hours which means it could land anywhere between Indonesia and Oregon

Watch out for large earthquakes in Indonesia, Cumbre Veija, the NMSZ, Yellowstone and Cascadia.

Problem is that if there is any large earthquake in one of those areas it could be attributed to the flare, but it does not prove the theory only the coincidence.

PDF Package for Magnitude 6.3 Kuril Islands usc00058wy now available. (1.8 Mb download)
usc00058wy.zip

Web site images only (936 Kb download)
usc00058wy_images.zip

View web version of page here

reply to post by PuterMan


PuterMan, a couple of questions if you don't mind -

Is your position that there is absolutely no correlation between solar activity and seismic activity? Or do you simply posit that while possible, it has yet to be adequately substantiated?

We have been seeing (very close to) a 6.0 or more per day for many days now. You have said in the past that, at that magnitude, you see no reason for concern. I assume that this kind of daily action is unusual though. At what point, or how many consecutive days of this activity, will you feel that the anomaly is worth attention?

I value your thoughts and time. Thanks!

reply to post by thinkingthing

the incoming doubble cme will reach us tomorrow... we will see........

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

 

...The M9 flare which is going to gobble up 2 more on the way hits tomorrow at 14:00 UTC with a spread of + or - 7 hours which means it could land anywhere between Indonesia and Oregon

Watch out for large earthquakes in Indonesia, Cumbre Veija, the NMSZ, Yellowstone and Cascadia.

Problem is that if there is any large earthquake in one of those areas it could be attributed to the flare, but it does not prove the theory only the coincidence.

Even no large magnetic pulses observed - YET; the number of high energy flares might have an effect on mamma Earth over this coming four to five days. These are not major flares, but they do have some punch;

2011-08-02 at UTC 06h19 = M1.4 from S/Spot #1261
2011-08-03 at UTC 03h37 = M1.1 from S/Spot #1261
2011-08-03 at UTC 04h33 = M1.7 from S/Spot #1263
2011-08-11 at UTC 13h48 = M6.0 from S/Spot #1261
2011-08-04 at UTC 03h45 = M9.3 from S/Spot #1261

The good news is that S/spot #1263 is off-centre to earth, thus we will not get the full blow, just a glance by.
Sunspot #1263 points right at Earth, that one will be a full blow.
Current flux speed around Earth still normal at 450 m/sec.

There is a BAD omen in my book. For some reason this past few months (year) I noticed all except one major solar flares were in direction of Jupiter. Noticable sunspot #1261 is now poitning direct at Jupiter. This is one of my suspicions that we are going to be looking down the barrel from Mid Sept to mid Nov period. By that time we are between Sun and Jupiter.

Somewhere around October I think we will see at more than one X-Class flares with some potential serious effects on Earth..

Though the energy reaches Earth and Northern lights will be spectacular from today, IF it does trigger Earthquakes I (Personally) do only expect that to be around late Saturday or during Sunday (GMT based). Takes a little longer from Magnetosphere to crust of earth; then still need to stir up energy i.e. resonance.

My bets:
Main Stack = Central Asia (Western China).
Corners = Gulf of California and Panama region.
Zero = New Zealand; standard insurance bet there.
50/50's = Northern Hemisphere.
Oh, well - I am usually not a good gambler; always play the outsiders.

reply to post by thinkingthing

Or do you simply posit that while possible, it has yet to be adequately substantiated?

Yes I guess that is my current position on the matter but I am still actively researching.

As regards the mag 6 earthquakes I don't in all honesty believe there is anything out of the ordinary. First these always come in 'bunches'. If you look at the graph, then excluding the area in March where the daily rate was obviously much higher, you can see that the graph is steady. This indicates a normal spread to me.



Before March no one commented on the number of mag 6 earthquakes, yet the earthquake density was about the same.



It is impossible to reconcile the number of mag 6 quakes in March as Japan swamped everything. Bear in mind also that some of these are still coming from Japan even now. It accounts for almost half of all the mag 6 quakes this year. If you choose to ignore Japan for a moment we have had approximately 70 mag 6 earthquakes and we are over half way through the year. That works out a 10 a month, so would make 120 for the year. We had 160 last year.

It is reasonable to exclude Japan as the Honshu area as prior to the mag 9 this area had very little activity. Here are the quakes of mag 6 + for the past 2 years before the Tohoku/Sendai earthquake.

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2010-07-04 21:55:51, 39.705, 142.523, 6.4, 23.7, Nr. E. Coast Of Honshu. Japan
2010-03-14 08:08:05, 37.780, 141.562, 6.5, 39.0, Nr. E. Coast Of Honshu. Japan
2009-08-10 20:07:07, 34.777, 138.276, 6.4, 26.0, Nr. S. Coast Of Honshu. Japan



Yup, just 3 in 2 years!! You will understand why everyone was caught on the hop!

Extending this to mag 7 quakes. 11 - of which 4 were in Honshu. Discount those and we have just 7, which extrapolated to year end would give 13 this year against last year's 21 or so.

I guess it is really a matter of whether you think it is justified to exclude the Japanese quakes. I consider it is since this is a special case - a unique case even and may not be repeated again - at least in my lifetime.

Other areas of the world are not showing any greater signs of activity so move along, nothing to see here!!

By the way if the Solar Flare Theory is correct then we should be seeing fewer earthquakes as the activity of the Sun is much lower. Sort of makes you wonder really. I am still checking and still not convinced.

reply to post by PuterMan


ummmm that would be around early,,march,,,
"we should be seeing fewer earthquakes
as the activity of the Sun is much lower." if by lower you mean the same,,
as the solar flare,,cme,,activity,,
in the past 3 or 4 days.
Im sure i have the data here somewhere. if its needed.

and if i remember right some where mentioning this,,3 too 4 days,,prior,,along with the Increase in +6,,,which were really 7's,, but,,
"sure looks like deja vue all over again"*

*yogi berra

ya its that bad.

gosh ,, I could swear the sun has been rather active lately..
though I dont believe it will have anything to do with quakes

reply to post by intergalactic fire


The energy levels are on those graphs as I tend not to use magnitudes.

Yes I produced those graphs myself. I would not use someone else's simply because I personally have a need to know that what I am producing is as accurate as I can get it and unless others provide the data I cannot guarantee this.

I could do you a graph for each year, but in all honesty you can easily do it yourself. (I am not saying I won't do the graphs just that you may get more out of the exercise if you put them together yourself. I am happy to do them if you need them and cannot do it yourself.)

If you are of a mind to get matlab then I guess Excel or equivalent will not be a problem. I have never used matlab. I gave up DOS interfaces 15 years ago!

I find Excel adequate for my needs. I did install GNU Octave which is a matlab equivalent but I am afraid I am not an academic and find it very difficult to understand the antique interface.

All you need is the centennial catalogue and the formula to get the energy which is

(10^(4.8+(Magnitude*1.5)))/10^6 to give you the energy release in Megajoules. The division by 10 power 6 at the end just converts from joules to megajoules.

The big problem with using energy is that the big quakes totally swamp the smaller ones whereas you tend not to see that using magnitudes.