Quake Watch 2012

3 small eqs in the southern areas of Australia in the past 24 hours.


SE of Thredbo, NSW.
Magnitude: 2.0 (ML)
Depth: 1 km
Tsunamigenic: Not available

Date and Time
UTC: 01 May 2012 @ 12:18:08
Sydney Time: 01 May 2012 @ 22:18:08 (AEST)

Location
Coordinates: -36.652, 148.516

Solution status
Last updated: 02 May 2012 @ 12:21:04 (AEST)
Solution finalised: Yes
Source: AUST

Geoscience Aust

Magnitude: 2.3 (ML)
Depth: 10 km
Tsunamigenic: Not available

Date and Time
UTC: 01 May 2012 @ 13:35:26
Sydney Time: 01 May 2012 @ 23:35:26 (AEST)

Location
Coordinates: -32.684, 138.377

Solution status
Last updated: 02 May 2012 @ 13:06:32 (AEST)
Solution finalised: Yes
Source: AUST

Geoscience data


SE of Cunderdin, WA.
Magnitude: 1.8 (ML)
Depth: 7 km
Tsunamigenic: Not available

Date and Time
UTC: 01 May 2012 @ 19:24:51
Sydney Time: 02 May 2012 @ 05:24:51 (AEST)

Location
Coordinates: -31.782, 117.380

Solution status
Last updated: 02 May 2012 @ 12:43:44 (AEST)
Solution finalised: Yes
Source: AUST

GeoScience data

Originally posted by PuterMan
On the subject of planetary 'alignments' / conjunctions /oppositions or whateva 'ere is sum low down info on the effects of gravity and tides on our planet using the Moon as the benchmark (Moon=1)

It is a little disappointing really.

Not really much affect at all.In fact if ALL of those were on the same line the total is only 0.01701.

Then consider an 'alignment' where Jupiter is on the opposite side. The gravitational effect on us is reduced for 0.01 to 0.005 and that is a big chunk of that 0.01701 gone - in fact 0.005 of it leaving 0.01201

Sources: Harmonic Con(game)vergence and Planetart Alignments: Fact or Fiction

And if you are not sufficiently 'undoomed' yet you could try 2012 Hoax: Planetary Alignments from which I got the above links.

And finally:

The line at the top of each of the above graphs (roughly where the Venus spikes max out) corresponds to a tidal acceleration that is one ten-thousandth as strong as the Sun's average tidal acceleration on Earth (or over 20,000 times smaller than the tidal acceleration induced twice every day by the Moon). The low line on the graphs, close to the long-term average of the net planetary tide, is one one-hundred-thousandth of the average solar tide. So, as expected, the gravitational influence of the planets on the Earth is utterly insignificant. We're saved!

(Not sure which line is refereed to as I don't see one above the Venus spikes but the figures speak for themselves. No scale references so not easy to see what this is.)
The Influence of the Planets

But never mind. I shall still continue to collect the lunar and celestial data around the time of each Mag 6+, even if only so someone in the future can make use of it to prove a point. (Either way as the data is unbiased)

Appreciate your work on this PuterMan, but I wouldn't be basing the 'alignment' effect around GRAVITY.

As you and others rightly point out, the gravitational effect is infinitesimal.

I believe that there are other universal forces that come into play upon certain alignments. Unfortunately we still don't understand everything that goes on out there, but by speculating and doing the research we may one day unlock the CODE

More Vancouver Island activity. They just keep coming.

Hope it doesn't lead to anything.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Is it just me, or does there seem to some rather interesting activity all over North America the past day? Quakes popping up where they usually don't; it's almost like pressure is building up around all sides of the continent. Would this equate to pressure building up on our faults, due to the constant releasing of pressure on the other side of the world? If so, would this increase the chances for quakes in the middle of the US? Does it work like that? I don't know if this makes sense or not, but seems reasonable to me. Someone please enlighten me Thanks!

reply to post by mountaingirl1111


I agree with you and also did you notice that the Japan area is eerily quiet today? It gives me an uneasy feeling but then again it could be nothing. I guess we will have to wait and see!

Wow just checking and actually the last EQ in Japan was on 4/30... USGS

reply to post by lindsay1984


USGS only lists 4.5 and above outside the US.

Japan's Meterological Agency lists all quakes within it's network zone.

Though it is a tad bit quiet, you can see that there is still some seismic activity happening.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


Thank you for the link I didn't know about that site. Still new to all this EQ business.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

 

LDEO are also showing 6.0 MW so that may have something to do with it!

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Handy to have another source, but how reliable is that I wonder?
Some of the locations are different to usgs's
and the magnitudes too e.g. W of Macquarie 5.9, USGS showing 5.5
Are they doing what I'm doing with SNZO I wonder?, looking at the LISS graphs

surface-wave sources identified by a systematic analysis of seismograms from the Global Seismographic Network and from other seismographic networks and stations

W of Macquarie 5.5?
LISS SNZO 02.05.2012
no way Jose

compare with the Macquarie 5.8 on 10.02.2012

I haven't checked the distances of the 2 quakes yet, from memory the Feb one was closer to SNZO, maybe



edit: Just looking down the list on Columbia, found this one, not shown elsewhere

2012 4 30 21 41 52.0 -57.50 -141.50 33.0 5.2 PACIFIC-ANTARCTIC RIDGE

that ID's an unidentified wiggle I had on SNZO
source link saved for future reference, thanks



who is the best to credit for the info on that page. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO)? Columbia UV? Göran Ekström? (I back tracked the link to see where it came from)
Found the Global CMT search page as well from there, interesting
yesterdays Chiapas at 6.1Mw


GCMT search is an awesome page, just left the default details in and got this

Region name: KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION
Date (y/m/d): 1976/1/1
hr min sec lat lon depth mb Ms
1 29 39.60 -28.61 -177.64 59.0 6.2 0.0
Mw = 7.3

yep had that one on 1976
7.3 Mw, 1976/1/1 1:29:39.39, -28.714, -177.42, 46.3, Kermadec Islands, ehb
a Mag 8Ms as well,
8.0 Ms, 1976/1/14 16:47:37.58, -29.172, -177.316, 31.7, Kermadec Islands, noaa
busy year for the Kermies

reply to post by muzzy

Handy to have another source, but how reliable is that I wonder?
Some of the locations are different to usgs's

I remind you of what John Vidale said a while back

Personally, I always use the Lamont number, if it is available, as Goran has included lots of nice corrections and carefully calibrated it - he's an artist. But for fast, good numbers, the USGS page is great, plus I can call them with questions, should they arise.

That site is acknowledged by most seismologists to be one of it not the best. I believe you can take it as very reliable. Yes it does differ from other sites. No longer on the page but Goran had these values for the Sumatra quakes.

2012 4 11 10 43 20.0 0.75 92.25 33.0 7.8 OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
2012 4 11 8 38 56.0 1.75 92.75 33.0 8.0 OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA

I copy the page from time to time and am looking to get it as a feed into my program for handy reference. Just have not had time yet.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1


You are probably right. You say not gravity, and the figures would indicate that, but you know we don't actually know what gravity is really.

I still think there IS a 55 year cycle linked to the Grand Conjunctions.

Seems there was another 5 around that same area in the Southern Ocean

Magnitude 5.5

Date-Time

Wednesday, May 02, 2012 at 12:17:59 UTC
Wednesday, May 02, 2012 at 10:17:59 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 54.588°S, 143.861°E
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles)
Region WEST OF MACQUARIE ISLAND
Distances 970 km (602 miles) W of Macquarie Island, Australia
1322 km (821 miles) S of HOBART, Tasmania, Australia
1361 km (845 miles) N of Dumont d'Urville, Antarctica
1866 km (1159 miles) S of MELBOURNE, Victoria, Australia
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 18.4 km (11.4 miles); depth +/- 4.2 km (2.6 miles)
Parameters NST= 72, Nph= 72, Dmin=977.4 km, Rmss=0.99 sec, Gp= 76°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=8
Source
Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Event ID usc0009h8a

USGS

Are MEGAQUAKES increasing?

I know that this question has been asked and mostly debunked by mainstream science, but I did the following bit of simple research on giant earthquakes of 8.5 and above since records have been kept, and found the following of note (taking 10 year periods of most activity:

1. From 1950 to 1959 there were 4 x 8.5+ megaquakes
2. From 1960 to 1969 there were 4 x 8.5+ megaquakes
3. From 2004 to 2012 (so far) there have already been 6 x 8.5+ megaquakes

Now that's already 50% event increase, over and above any previous known recorded period, so HOW can it be claimed that everything is 'normal'?

Given that a couple of the largest by energy quakes happened in the 1960's, I'm not arguing the 'energy', but rather the NUMBER.

Who believes that we aren't going to see a few more 8.5+ quakes in the next couple of years to add to that current 6 x 8.5+ number (so far we are less than 8 years thru the current 2004 to 2013 period of calculation)?

Interesting that the previous noticeable period of activity was in the 1950's to 1960's which fits into PuterMan's 55 year activity cycle theory.

SOURCE

reply to post by SpaceJockey1

Given that a couple of the largest by energy quakes happened in the 1960's, I'm not arguing the 'energy', but rather the NUMBER.

Which is where you are incorrect, especially at these levels.

Who believes that we aren't going to see a few more 8.5+ quakes in the next couple of years to add to that current 6 x 8.5+ number (so far we are less than 8 years thru the current 2004 to 2013 period of calculation)?

I do. I will come back to this in a hour or so.

1. From 1950 to 1959 there were 4 x 8.5+ megaquakes
2. From 1960 to 1969 there were 4 x 8.5+ megaquakes
3. From 2004 to 2012 (so far) there have already been 6 x 8.5+ megaquakes

By the way. Do what? Change the time bands because it suits? Cherry picking so that is

According to muzzys Mag 8+ quakes list the 8.5+ quakes numbers are:

1950-1959 3
1960-1969 4
1970-1979 0
1980-1989 0
1990-1999 0
2000-2009 3
2010-2019 3

So whilst there could be more before 2019, maybe there won't be. Who knows? But then who determines the magnitudes? Muzzy has one more that the Centennial, from NEIC in the 1960 batch. That is OK. It just depends who is assembling the catalogue.

If you go by LDEO you can lose one of the 2010-2019 one because they ahev the 8.6 as 8.0 and the 8.2 ans 7.8.

And then what of mag 8+. Something against them have we? Some people define mag 8+ as megaquakes.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by SpaceJockey1

 

Given that a couple of the largest by energy quakes happened in the 1960's, I'm not arguing the 'energy', but rather the NUMBER.

Which is where you are incorrect, especially at these levels.

Who believes that we aren't going to see a few more 8.5+ quakes in the next couple of years to add to that current 6 x 8.5+ number (so far we are less than 8 years thru the current 2004 to 2013 period of calculation)?

I do. I will come back to this in a hour or so.

Ahhh! I should have known better than to base my post on numbers, rather than ENERGY!

Sort of not the size but what you DO with it, that counts

But I know that you agree that since 2004 we are definitely seeing an INCREASE in earthquake activity, which appears to be cyclic.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1

Sort of not the size but what you DO with it, that counts

Absolutely. It may be a big one but is it full of energy? One (decade) may be small but much more energetic.

Mag 8+ FYI

Decade, Count, Nominal energy
1900 to 1909, 8, 2,058
1910 to 1919, 5, 759
1920 to 1929, 6, 1,931
1930 to 1939, 7, 985
1940 to 1949, 9, 761
1950 to 1959, 7, 5,807
1960 to 1960, 8, 16,384
1970 to 1979, 8, 724
1980 to 1989, 4, 278
1990 to 1999, 6, 645
2000 to 2009, 13, 4,004
2010 to 2019, 4, 4,445

Even that last 12 years comes nowhere near the decade of the 60s, only half of it. 1960 on it's own was more than the whole of the rest that century by 3000+ PJ. (And that is counting it as Mag 9.5 but I see several references to it having been 9.6 Mw.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by SpaceJockey1

 

Sort of not the size but what you DO with it, that counts

Absolutely. It may be a big one but is it full of energy? One (decade) may be small but much more energetic.

Mag 8+ FYI

Decade, Count, Nominal energy
1900 to 1909, 8, 2,058
1910 to 1919, 5, 759
1920 to 1929, 6, 1,931
1930 to 1939, 7, 985
1940 to 1949, 9, 761
1950 to 1959, 7, 5,807
1960 to 1960, 8, 16,384
1970 to 1979, 8, 724
1980 to 1989, 4, 278
1990 to 1999, 6, 645
2000 to 2009, 13, 4,004
2010 to 2019, 4, 4,445

Even that last 12 years comes nowhere near the decade of the 60s, only half of it. 1960 on it's own was more than the whole of the rest that century by 3000+ PJ. (And that is counting it as Mag 9.5 but I see several references to it having been 9.6 Mw.

I agree and thanks for putting that list together...I was hunting around for hours to come up with something like that.

Going by your 55 yr cycle theory, you'd notice that the 1950 decade showed a sizable increase in energy compared with any other decade in the previous 50 years, and then followed by more than triple the energy output during the 1960 to 1969 decade.

Now given that between 2000 and 2009 we had a large energy increase (similar to the 1950's), and just 2 years into the 2010 to 2019 decade, we have already passed the previous DECADES energy output, it looks to me like we could be in for a bumpy ride till 2019!

reply to post by SpaceJockey1

Now given that between 2000 and 2009 we had a large energy increase (similar to the 1950's), and just 2 years into the 2010 to 2019 decade, we have already passed the previous DECADES energy output, it looks to me like we could be in for a bumpy ride till 2019!

This is a possibility one could not discount. 1960 was exceptional, but according to Muzzy's list not unknown. Ecuador apparently popped of a 9.7 Unknown scale in 1827. Since I have Ecuador earmarked as the next whopper (but under 9) I could be wrong. Maybe nearly 200 years later it will produce a 9.5.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1


Now here is one right up your street Space Jockey. Bill Foster does all sorts of earthquake stuff and lots of other doom and chaos and styles himself as the Master Of Chaos. Now despite what that might sound like actually his site is well worth following. We may disagree slightly on the statistics and methodologies, but no problem and he has several interesting ideas.

The May 20, 2012 Solar Eclipse totality line is shown in red; passing directly through Tokyo. The blue eclipse lines mark the limits of seeing the full eclipse. I've also marked the mega-quake and tsunami of March 22, 2011. Several subduction zones, along the southeast of the country are highlighted by this eclipse.
An expanded view of the entire eclipse shows that it starts in the east, sweeps up towards the Aleutian Island chain and down through California and Nevada.

The May 20, 2012 Solar Eclipse and the Tectonic Plates of Japan.

Magnitude 5.3 5.2 WESTERN TURKEY

Lo cation in Google Maps

Derived from Data Source: EMSC
Powered by QVSData

Magnitude M 5.2
Region WESTERN TURKEY
Date time 2012-05-03 15:20:27.0 UTC
Location 39.17 N ; 29.16 E
Depth 10 km
Distances 115 km S Bursa (pop 1,412,701 ; local time 18:20:27.3 2012-05-03)
59 km NW Usak (pop 152,862 ; local time 18:20:27.3 2012-05-03)
18 km NE Simav (pop 34,909 ; local time 18:20:27.3 2012-05-03)
16 km NW Saphane (pop 5,085 ; local time 18:20:27.3 2012-05-03)

There was a 4.9 mb about 33km from here on the 26th April.

Magnitude mb 4.9
Region WESTERN TURKEY
Date time 2012-04-26 22:05:33.0 UTC
Location 39.12 N ; 29.08 E
Depth 8 km
Distances 120 km S Bursa (pop 1,412,701 ; local time 01:05:33.9 2012-04-27)
57 km NW Usak (pop 152,862 ; local time 01:05:33.9 2012-04-27)
10 km E Simav (pop 34,909 ; local time 01:05:33.9 2012-04-27)

The 4.9 above was classified 5.1 Mw by LDEO

2012 4 26 22 5 36.0 39.00 29.00 33.0 5.1 TURKEY

It is having a little session.

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2012-05-03 15:20:27, 39.177, 29.179, 5.2, 2.0, Western Turkey
2012-05-03 15:25:27, 39.087, 29.068, 3.7, 2.0, Western Turkey
2012-05-03 15:28:30, 39.041, 29.081, 3.6, 5.0, Western Turkey
2012-05-03 15:40:05, 39.099, 29.078, 3.5, 5.0, Western Turkey

All sourced from EMSC

reply to post by PuterMan


Puterman, your post on the 10.7cm solar flux data was interesting.
Were the TEC anomalies over the Tohoku fault area related to/caused by the spike in solar flux on March 7th?
Or do you think the TEC values were a result of strain on the rocks, such as Friedemann Freund suggests?
Whatever the cause, the timing was curious, if only coincedent.

I found the solar flux data at the Canadian Space Weather website. You can look at 2004 to present in html or they have a FTP link for even older data.