Quake Watch 2012

Originally posted by AlexanderM

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by AlexanderM

I am of course refering to the work of Young and Bryant, regarding the evidence of the Hawaii landslide and resulting tsunami in Australia 105,000 years ago. Now, this is disputed, but what isn't.

Yet you are not disputing it apparently - based on what evidence?

The problem with the computer models that you believe in so certainly, which is ridiculous, is that those models "assume" the slide will behave in a certain manner. And, of course, if that's what you program into the model, that's what you will get out of the model.

Ha ha. You are telling me about computer models? ALL of these both the big and the small were computer models.

With a slide of this size you err on the side of caution, and you don't tell people there will be a 1 meter high tsunami on the east coast of the US because that may mean some will not see the need to seek higher ground. And, if you and your expert are then wrong, and experts are wrong all the time, then many lives are placed in grave danger.

And if you and your experts are wrong, which by the way is the general consensus, then hundreds if not thousands of people will be killed in the rush when there is no need.

Think South American earthquake Mag 8.8. Predicted tsnuami in Hawaii really did not happen. Computer models are often wrong and any computer model can be made to say anything you want it to say, believe me.

Research indicates that there was a giant tsunami in the Pacific Ocean some 105,000 years ago, caused by either a submarine landslide, volcanic activity, an earthquake or possibly a meteorite impact. The enormous submarine landslide theory is considered most likely, with these types of landslides having been proven around the various islands of the Hawaiian chain.

www.saburchill.com...

So, yes, the existence of a gigantic tsunami in the Pacific Ocean around 105,000 years ago appears to be very probable. However, such a tsunami, even though enormous in relation to more recently recorded ones, would not have been of sufficient size to have ‘covered the United States’. It would certainly have caused catastrophic damage along the west coast of the US, but it would not have progressed that far in land, particularly due to the presence of the west coast mountain ranges. It would also have devastated islands and coastal areas all around the Pacific and even beyond. And as mentioned already, the hottest theory of the cause of such a tsunami is an enormous submarine landslide in the Hawaiian Islands - but a meteorite or asteroid impact in the Pacific Ocean can also not be ruled out.

refering to the work of Young and Bryant

The problem here is that yet again you have NOT provided a reference. You have made a statement but not backed it up.

Moore and Moore (1984) attributed Pleistocene rubble deposits up to 326 m above present sea level from Lanai (Hawaiian Archipelago) to enormous waves that occurred during the last-interglaciation. Lipman et al. (1988) tied the Lanai deposits to the Alika submarine landslide to the east on the island of Hawaii. Young and Bryant (1992) associated sedimentary disruption of stage 5e deposits above 15 m in New South Wales, Australia (14,000 km away) to the Lanai wave event about 105,000 yr ago. Jones (1992), however, disputed the Hawaiian source of the tsunami, citing problems with wave attenuation and evidence of uplift of the Hawaiian Islands to explain the Lanai deposits. In reply, Young and Bryant (1992) appropriately noted that, despite some debate on the source of the large waves, the disruption of lastinterglacial sand barriers over 500 km of Australian coastline is in itself an impressive geomorphic product of large waves in the Pacific Ocean.

Source: Boulder Deposits from Large Waves during the Last Interglaciation on North Eleuthera Island, Bahamas Paul J. Hearty

Now Messrs Bryant and Young got some stick basically for their assertions, so much so that they had to pen a reply

I could probably link you to the 14 or so documents with regard to flank failures, but most of them do not even mention tsunamis, so I will leave you with this one while I await the 'evidence' that you still have not linked.

The tsunami hypothesis—comparisons of the field evidence against the effects, on the Western Australian coast, of some of the most powerful storms on Earth

A somewhat odd title but worth a read of the first paragraph.

continuation to post by PuterMan


So, thus far you have quoted a much disputed work on the effects of a 105,000 year old Hawaiian tsunami on the Australian coast when we were I thought discussing Cumbre Veija. I have provided many links to documentation, but you have provided none. Not one single link.

Rightly or wrongly I believe it is common sense to provide evidence to the statements one is making if one is depending on the work of others. I am still waiting therefore for the evidence that you stated was proof that Cumbre Veija could cause a mega-tsunami in Florida.

I have pointed you at Wood, another often discredited hypothesis due to flawed computer models. I have linked you to refences about the paper you have brought up.

Unfortunately the paper to which you refer "Catastrophic wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia: Impact of the Lanai tsunamis ca. 105 ka?" is paywalled, so I assume that you have access to this otherwise you would not be able to make your statement.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to reference so elements from the document so I can understand your point.

These documents, in the past, were easy to access, I used to have no problem finding them. I have accessed them in the past and have seen documentaries based on those discussions. I do not care that I cannot access them now, I have looked at that material in the past.

The fact is, this could be a major event, and it is, and will remain, my position, that to downplay the threat is completely and utterly unresponsible. If that slide does occur, people need to get to high ground and the experts need to err on the side of caution. Computer models behave exactly how they are programmed to behave, to treat them as conclusive, when so many lives are in danger, is unresponsible.

reply to post by AlexanderM

These documents, in the past, were easy to access, I used to have no problem finding them. I have accessed them in the past and have seen documentaries based on those discussions. I do not care that I cannot access them now, I have looked at that material in the past.

I hear what you are saying and believe me I do understand that material is getting difficult to find these days.

Unfortunately, on ATS at least, the "pics or it didn't happen" scenario is omni-present.

I guess if you can't access the information either then we will have to let it lie. A pity really as I would have like to see what it is that many are disputing.

I seriously do care that information is becoming less available.

I really have no problem with people saying that they believe this won't be a problem, other than locally, and that the models say what they say. It's just with an event that could be this size, we should say to people, look it might not be a problem, but get the heck out of the way, just to be safe.

El Hierro had 46 47 Mag 2+ quakes today.

There was a definite VT incident around 1500 UTC

It has looked much quieter as far as VT goes since then, but there are still several earthquakes popping off.

The quakes today were in the same area as yesterday

Whats happening to New Zealand ????

Type: Earthquake
53 minutes ago
Magnitude: 3.7
DateTime: Thursday June 28 2012, 23:49:00 UTC
Region: 40 km north of Queenstown
Depth: 5 km
Source: NZ GeoNet

Type: Earthquake
32 minutes ago
Magnitude: 4
DateTime: Friday June 29 2012, 00:10:00 UTC
Region: 10 km east of Christchurch
Depth: 10 km
Source: NZ GeoNet

Originally posted by PuterMan
snip

Unfortunately the paper to which you refer "Catastrophic wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia: Impact of the Lanai tsunamis ca. 105 ka?" is paywalled, so I assume that you have access to this otherwise you would not be able to make your statement.

snip

free pdf, out of institutional paywall.

size warning, 3.57 MB

This is original, "official of record" from GSA Pubs / GeoScienceWorld.

UOW has a free 924 KB low res at ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/83/, but the images are degraded.

-

Catastrophic wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia: Impact of the Lanai tsunamis ca. 105 ka?

R. W. Young and E. A. Bryant

Geology 1992;20;199-202
doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1992)0202.3.CO;2

-

jjjtir.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/geology-1992-young-199-202.pdf

reply to post by exzgtct


Thank you most kindly.

I shall take a read of that later.

Edit to add:

I came across this web page which may be of interest. It is actually a series of 5 pages

Earthquakes and Tsunamis in Sumatra: What we have recently learned (The intro page)

Followed by:

• Why Earthquakes and Tsunamis Occur in the Sumatra Region
  
• What Happened During the 2004 Sumatra Earthquake
  
• Using Coral to Track the History of Earthquakes
  
• Rethinking the Causes of Giant Earthquakes
  

Some good graphics as well.

This can't be good

5.8 South Atlantic Ocean 2012-06-29 15:31:46 24.735°S 9.723°W 10.0

Source

It looks like my there's no big one yet. So, those three Tonga quakes were foolin' me. Actually there were four when you look at it.
So, Tonga, Tonga, Tonga.
My gut was wronga, wronga, wronga.

Nothing else to say except- wow, I just I forgot about it because the region has been so sleepy. The North Eastern US has not had anything in the longest while. Although, not on the USGS board. I found a little one in Ohio at the end of May. Otherwise, excluding Virginia that's been a regular feature, there's nuttin'. for now...


Had some links about warnings for New Zealand but can't get to them right now. Search news you'll see it.

Originally posted by dreamfox1
Whats happening to New Zealand ????

in a nutshell;
During the Dusky Sound 7.6 (some say 7.8) quake of July 15 2009 the SW corner of the South Island moved south-west towards the west-south-west (in a direction somewhat to the south of Australia) at a GPS measured 200-350mm GPS Map of that.
That resulted in stress being placed on the Canterbury Plains/Banks Peninsula area to the East of the Southern Alps, and resulted in the 7.1 Christchurch quake of Sept 4 2010, and the devastating 2011 aftershocks of Port Hills Feb 28, Moncks Bay July 13 (both Mag 6.3ML), and Pegusus Bay Dec 23 Mag 6.0

Since the last mag 6 Canterbury quake there has been little activity in the Mag 6 range anywhere in New Zealand apart from a couple of 6.3's at the East Cape Ridge, NE of the North Island and at Puysegur Bank SW of the South Island, these can be considered background seismicity due to subduction.
The Alpine Fault break is the one every one is dreading,with the possibility of Mag high 7 to low 8, but where on the Alpine Fault is the big question?.
I'm picking to the north, somewhere in the region from Hanmer Springs, Nelson Lakes to Blenheim based on what has been happening in Canterbury. Cook Strait is always on the cards too. But it could be anywhere, big quakes have the habit of popping off where they are least expected.

Lately the daily counts and magnitudes have been relatively low compared to 2009-2011




Whats happening in the last 24hrs?
well you'll have to wait until 5pmish NZST to see the confirmed quakes for the 29th UTC, but Geonet Rapid are saying there has been a swarm going on in Hawke Bay, Mag 2's
goo.gl...
They are probably related to the 2 x Mag 4's up on East Cape Ridge (subduction going on) [zoom out on map]

Hi all... I've been pretty much a lurker on this thread, and I don't have any professional technical knowledge but I do follow earthquake patterns. I've downloaded this little gadget from Microsoft that shows a list of recent quakes, the magnitude, and the area. It's not that great, I'm sure, but I was curious as to how much of a delay might be involved with it. Anybody have any idea how this thing works? For all I know it might be an hour or more delay... just curious. Thanks!

reply to post by Scribe611


What is the name of the program? I might like it too.

Magnitude 6.3 - Northern Xinjiang. China

Location in Google Maps

• Date-Time: Friday, June 29, 2012 @ 21:07:32 UTC
  
• Earthquake location: 43.444°N, 84.725°E,
  
• Earthquake depth: 9.8 km
  
• Distances:
  99km (61mi) S of Dushanzi, China
  141km (87mi) SW of Shihezi, China
  218km (135mi) WSW of Changji, China
  220km (136mi) NNW of Korla, China
  826km (513mi) E of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
  
• Event ID: usb000aue4
  

Derived from Event Data Source: USGS
Powered by QVSData

reply to post by Scribe611


It depends entirely where it is sourcing the data. Normally it is between 10 and 20 minutes before a quake appears on any lists.

What is the gadget called by the way and is it browser based?

If you just want to know what is going on in the world visually then Earthquake 3D is a good tool but is not an alert tool (I think). It uses the USGS feed and is pretty much up to date.

You can see an image of the display here: qvsdata.wordpress.com...

reply to post by PuterMan

same quake, Chinese estimate

2012-06-30
05:07:31.6
43.4, 84.8 7
Ms6.6
新疆维吾尔自治区伊犁哈萨克自治州新源县、巴音郭楞蒙古自治州和静县交界
www.csndmc.ac.cn...

Originally posted by exzgtct

Originally posted by PuterMan
snip

Unfortunately the paper to which you refer "Catastrophic wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia: Impact of the Lanai tsunamis ca. 105 ka?" is paywalled, so I assume that you have access to this otherwise you would not be able to make your statement.

snip

free pdf, out of institutional paywall.

size warning, 3.57 MB

This is original, "official of record" from GSA Pubs / GeoScienceWorld.

UOW has a free 924 KB low res at ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/83/, but the images are degraded.

-

Catastrophic wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia: Impact of the Lanai tsunamis ca. 105 ka?

R. W. Young and E. A. Bryant

Geology 1992;20;199-202
doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1992)0202.3.CO;2

-

jjjtir.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/geology-1992-young-199-202.pdf

edit on 28-6-2012 by exzgtct because: (no reason given)

Just reposting this cause they got canned.

reply to post by muzzy


6.6 Ms = 7.33 Mw

I wonder if they have that right?

reply to post by Anmarie96

The Russians gave that a 6.0mb
www.ceme.gsras.ru...
another Red orb on the RAS map for June