Quake Watch 2011

reply to post by angelchemuel


Basically transmission breaks and/or calibration pulses. This is not a break in the operation of the instrument so much as in the transmission of the data back to wherever it is going.

Transmission of data can be by land line (modem), by microwave or by satellite to mention a few the latter two being a bit like internet connections. In particular microwave and satellite transmissions can be subject to dropout (breaks), interference and other forms of cra...rubbish.

The calibration pulses as I understand it are similar to the signal in the image at the bottom of this page and may be either as a result of the break, where following one, or specifically implemented. In this instance however because the signals are identical on both instruments I would suggest that it is a component of a possible common transmission rather than calibration.

Calibration 'shots' are not the same thing - they re explosions and an interesting article (PDF) can be viewed here on Dead Sea calibration shots(explosions)

The Antarctic one is basically just breaks. Somehow I doubt that methane 'farts' could interrupt seismograph transmission, but then again ....................

I just came across this document Data Analysis and Seismogram Interpretation which is a serious serious look at seismogram interpretation and a quick scan through it makes me realise just how very little I know about the subject!

ETA: Here is another example of a calibration signal on page 9 of this document (PDF) which is very technical and full of equations with squiggly characters but the pictures are good!

reply to post by zeziyav


Nice find. It would seem that there is no option then other than to implement the depopulation program as they will not stop fracking since gas makes too much money. Getting rid or a billion or two should compensate for the wells.

Nice find. Thanks.

reply to post by PuterMan


As always, thank you for taking the time to explain. I assumed when I saw it in the pst that it was a local technical glitch. But when I saw it over 4 stations, and one island, but in the same region, I thought it would mean something else....ah well!

Rainbows
Jane

Miss me?I love Chinese food!

Text011-12-15 11:44:48.0 1hr 12min ago 38.98 N 75.62 E 40 4.3 SOUTHERN XINJIANG, CHINA

source(www.emsc-csem.org...

Just for the sake of the game!!

reply to post by murkraz


Where do I begin? I have answered this point so many times now in so many different places that I can't remember where! For once Fox News are correct.

First you need to arm yourself with my report for 2010 which compares 2010 to the preceding decade. (You can also download a PDF version from there). Be aware that the figures are slightly different, for example 21 Mag 7 and the reason is that for many months after the event they 'tinker' with the figures. That report was done within 2 days of the year end which is hindsight was probably not such a good idea. The correct value for Mag 7 in 2010 is 22. (muzzy will not agree with this but I am just quoting USGS/NEIC/ANSS and not al the rest. I think his figure is higher. You could do worse than to look at his Major World Quakes mapping project.)

You can also view the original ATS thread for it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The average energy in Exajoules for the eleven year period is 13.3, and 2010 is only just above that at 14.3. This is dwarfed by 2000 which was 20.9!
In fact in the energy release rankings 2010 is a second division team being only 7th highest out of 11 or if you prefer ranking 5th behind 2009, 2007, 2002 and 2000.

You will also find a ton of graphs and stuff in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, by the time you have waded through all that lot you will probably think that I agree that earthquakes are on the increase. You would be right BUT............................

This, rather like the graphs that compare 1975 onwards (see below) is not even accurate since the figures are small compared to 1960 which I will come to in a moment.

The stats he uses are ridiculous. He takes absolutely no account of Japan in his numbers, and his statistical comparisons are peculiar. Why does he compare pairs of years? Most odd.

I have said it a dozen time, Japan was a unique event in recent historical time. It was not anticipated by anyone and it has doubled the number of quakes in 2011 in the mag 6 bracket.

(I am having some severe problems with image uploads just at the moment.) This is an older version showing energy and counts from 1960 to 2010



I also have somewhere from 1900 to 2010 but this one 1930 to 2010 should suffice.



Ah found my 1900 to 2010 graph



The graphs illustrate that 2010 - and even 2011 - are not the major players against 1960. Whilst Japan and Banda Aceh are up there, Chile is the king.

To cut a long story short (and I could make it much longer but I have to go out) yes currently earthquakes are on the increase by comparison to two or so decades before, but not to the 1905/60 decades. The incidence of mega-quakes is cyclical and MAY be related to the 55 year sun cycle since it seems to coincide but I have not have time to complete that study.

Seek out New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 60, September, 2011 - in fact you can download it and other from here. This news letter which came out in September appears to confirm my ~55 year cycle.

IF this is correct then we MAY have just passed through the top of the cycle and expect one mega-quake in the next 2 years of so of around 8.5 and then slide back into another 30 or so years of relative quiet before we ramp up towards the top of the next peak around 2040/2050 ish.

By the way as you may have gathered plain NUMBERS just don't hack it for me. It is all about energy.

reply to post by radpetey


At your service Sir!


reply to post by Gridrebel

The only one I've found is this, but it isn't super specific.

No, it is not and I could tell you where it comes from as it is an erroneous graph that I know well. That graph shows quakes since the real quiet spot, and from a time since which there have been about 4000 stations added! Yes it has gone up but only if you ignore all the reasons! See above.

Thanks for the plug Puterman

@ general readers
The link is at the bottom of my posts anyway, although unless you are signed in as a member you can't see those.

I suppose with that project I'm not really looking at just Mag 7's or 8's, or even just Destructive quakes either, but rather its based on the Key on the side column descriptions, Strong, Very Strong, Major, and Great, that gives me some leeway to include some earthquakes that for example the Russians called 7.1Ms but USGS might have called 6.8Mw, and at the end of the day ( and for the people there at the location of the quake) a Very Strong quake is a Very Strong quake. Sure a 6.3 can cause more damage than a 7.1 (Christchurch 2011 Feb 22) and even 5's can destroy whole towns and kill lots of people ( in places like Iran, Turkey, etc) but I had to draw the line somewhere, it still a huge task just doing the 7+'s, it could possibly take another year to get back to Year 314 with the 7's.

To do a long term study you can't possibly just rely on one source ( eg USGS) because they only go back so far.

USGS analyists get paid and have to produce an end result. After all the studies and millions of $US spent, are we any the wiser as to what is going on? I don't think so.

reply to post by muzzy

Thanks for the plug Puterman

'Tis my pleasure Sir, to be sure! You even have a listing on QVS Data although I don't suppose you noticed that!

Wot I did come here to say woz..............


You know that 6.3? earthquake.usgs.gov...

I noted earlier to day that EMSC have brought it down to 6.0 Mw and USGS have it as 6.0 Mw here: earthquake.usgs.gov... and 5.9 here: earthquake.usgs.gov... and their body moment tensor solution which said 6.1 has been removed from the data. Why I wonder? As luck would have it I had copied it to my page for the event which I have not published yet, and here it is



I have to wonder why, when it is almost certain this is going to come down to 6.0, or even 5.9 just to get under the radar, it has not be reduced in price yet. If this waits 7 days then I will have proved my point.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by murkraz

 

To cut a long story short (and I could make it much longer but I have to go out) yes currently earthquakes are on the increase by comparison to two or so decades before, but not to the 1905/60 decades. The incidence of mega-quakes is cyclical and MAY be related to the 55 year sun cycle since it seems to coincide but I have not have time to complete that study.

Seek out New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 60, September, 2011 - in fact you can download it and other from here. This news letter which came out in September appears to confirm my ~55 year cycle.

IF this is correct then we MAY have just passed through the top of the cycle and expect one mega-quake in the next 2 years of so of around 8.5 and then slide back into another 30 or so years of relative quiet before we ramp up towards the top of the next peak around 2040/2050 ish.

Glad to see you are looking into it
"The findings of McMinn (2011a & 2011b) and this assessment were generally supportive of a 9/56 year
cycle in the timing of major earthquakes around the world. However, current understanding of this
phenomenon was extremely limited and much more follow up research was imperative"

Well I had another look at it, the last time I just couldn't see what he was getting at.
In particular the New Zealand Data.
As I have atendancy to do, I checked myself, and here is what I found.
One entry is wrong, there was no mag 6.8+ quake in 1893, Geonet (GNS) have a 6.7, so its seems a case of making the data fit the theory here.
And he missed heaps of others.
I copied his graph and entered the missing ones.
The bottom graph is all Mag 6.8+ quakes from Geonet (just made it easier to see and transfer the missing ones)

With the missing ones added does this add more weight to his theory?






might as well have a Timeline graph with that while I have the file open

Off topic question but... what is the 'K' count under our profile names (after stars and flags etc) ?? It's been bugging me!!!

Originally posted by MoorfNZ
Off topic question but... what is the 'K' count under our profile names (after stars and flags etc) ??

It's been bugging me!!!

You can use ATS search engine and find many answers.

Things heating up near the southern triple plate junction in Chile:
earthquake.usgs.gov...

MAP 5.5 2011/12/16 12:54:25 -45.852 -76.264 10.0 OFF THE COAST OF AISEN, CHILE
MAP 5.2 2011/12/16 12:02:57 -45.852 -76.075 9.9 OFF THE COAST OF AISEN, CHILE

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Something to keep an eye on I think. GEE, I have seismic eyes on virtually the entire ring of fire.

And oh, whoever posted that 120 micron GEE waveform at C.GO05 or C.GO09, that quake was very minor. As in not even a 4.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
And oh, whoever posted that 120 micron GEE waveform at C.GO05 or C.GO09, that quake was very minor. As in not even a 4.

That was me. I had originally thought it was the trace from the mag 5.9 from Indonesia @ 13:38:28UTC on the 7th. But the travel time was too slow--so yes, you are correct, it was a Chilean quake. According to the Universidad de Chile it was magnitude 4.1 (Ml). Source

further to post by muzzy


and an interactive map of course
Map of all New Zealand Mag 6+ quakes 1840-2011

the slightly faded icons are ones of unknown magnitude from the early days, one assumes they must have been of significant intensity to make the search result list mag 6+, probably got there from felt reports from locals. There are 67 of them.
so over 171 years
205 events from 6.0 to 6.991
38 events from 7.0 to 7.875
1 event @ 8.2

all up 53,623,054.50 106,448,601.61 tons of TNT energy released, but you could probably add 50% to that if the unknowns magnitudes were established. Of that 30,089,039.48 TTNT was the 8.2 all the rest combined only add up to an 8.47 quake
On another note, based on the time scale of 171 years, if you take the North Island heading east by 50mm a year we have likely moved 8.5 meters from where we were in 1840



FWIW there was one error in the Geonet download, Ref: 2823368, 2007/11/16 20:10:00, a Mag 7.113, 33km depth, has the Lat as 90 and the Long as 0.
I had a search through NEIC and there was no 7's that day anywhere in the World.



Oh Ok then, an
Inteactive Map of just Mag 7+ quakes 1840-2011

* its easier now to put these maps on since I loaded Dropbox to my Desktop, I can save the files directly without having to go onto the Internet and load multiple files all at once and also get the link address from there too. All leading to a massive upgrade of my NZ Historical Earthquakes blog to interactive status over the holidays.

reply to post by Olivine


In time you will come to recognize that the distance between the arrival of the P and S waves in the waveform itself tell a great deal about the quake. And one of the first things this defines is the rough distance from hypocenter to station. In the waveform you posted, you can see right away (if you are used to this sort of thing) that the distance was shorter, like within about 100 miles or so from station, thereby eliminating the possibility of teleseism (it being a distant quake.)

Call up some stations around the Philippines as teleseisms happen frequently there, and you can see what bigger quakes look like from a distance (when the next one happens). After a while you get a rough feel for distance to station just from a quick glance at the waveform. There are times though that becomes tougher when the quake is real close to station, and there is no real visible separation between the two- until you zoom way in, that is. And even then, it can be unclear.

quite a few double entries on USGS 7 days list for today
earthquake.usgs.gov...

I wondered if they were just covering thier azzes and hoping at least one of them was correct
until I checked GFZ, same thing
geofon.gfz-potsdam.de...

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Good tip

you can do that on LISS too,
those two Chile quakes this morning show quite well on SNZO, but you can see a huge measurement between the P wave and the S wave, so at a glance know that it wasn't local

aslwww.cr.usgs.gov...

reply to post by muzzy


Yes true, most quake waveforms show this, whether on GEE or LISS or wherever.

In the meantime, check out our new seismo in Vanuato:
www.iris.edu...

That place is similar to Chile...never sleeps.

reply to post by MoorfNZ

W= "Way above top secret" = What people think of you as a starter of threads. An accumulative measure based mainly on flags and stars.W is the "WATS Index", calculated as: ((FLAGS x 5) x STARS)/1000000.
K="Karma"= What people think of you as a writer of replies to threads. More emphasis on stars. The formula also includes an element of "divide by the number of posts", so it can go down as well as up. Everybody starts with 20, which goes down rapidly as they keep posting.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


cool
I find those graphs harder to guess the distance unless they are biguns
that one at 18:07 looks close by
not on the lists yet