Quake Watch 2012

Researcher: Japan should prepare for worst-case magnitude-10 earthquake

November 23, 2012
By SHIGEKO SEGAWA/ Staff Writer

ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201211230030

Japan should be prepared for the possibility of a magnitude-10 earthquake, although the chances of a temblor that size are slim, a seismologist said.

“The chances of a magnitude-10 occurring are very low,” professor Toru Matsuzawa of Tohoku University reported at a Nov. 21 meeting of the Coordinating Committee for Earthquake Prediction, Japan. “But if we think of what could happen, with the maximum in mind, we can make a swift response.”

The world’s largest recorded earthquake was the magnitude-9.5 Valdivia earthquake off the coast of Chile in 1960, rupturing a 1,000-kilometer fault. A magnitude-10 earthquake would be 30 times more powerful than the magnitude-9.0 Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011.

Matsuzawa said a magnitude-10 quake is possible in theory if a large fault slips.

If a temblor of such a scale should strike, the underground rupture would continue for 20 minutes to an hour, meaning tsunami could hit coasts before the shaking subsides.

If a 3,000-kilometer stretch from the Japan Trench to the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench along the Pacific Ring of Fire has a slip of 60 meters, that would constitute a magnitude-10 earthquake, he said.

The energy of a magnitude-11 quake, 30 times more powerful than a magnitude-10 temblor, would be equivalent to that of the asteroid impact that is believed to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65.5 million years ago. Such a quake would cause a shift extending more than 20,000 kilometers. Matsuzawa concluded that consideration would not be needed for such an earthquake.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


All items ticked.

See thread.

reply to post by muzzy


Maybe there is a 6 mag in the pipe!!

earthquake.usgs.gov...

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo


Thanks for that one. I needed the laugh.

There is something curious happening to scientists since the Italian Job (Not Michael Caine). They are all changing from "men in white coats guessing" to "men in white coats who are respected scientists making wild guesses just in case, so they can say, well we did warn you, see".

The tail end of the area described has NEVER behaved in one block as far as I am aware. Why then should it join hands with the area that has just faulted (2011) plus a bit more, and do another 60mtr sprint? Answer it won't.

This is 'backside protectionism' at it's best.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

 

Thanks for that one. I needed the laugh.

There is something curious happening to scientists since the Italian Job (Not Michael Caine). They are all changing from "men in white coats guessing" to "men in white coats who are respected scientists making wild guesses just in case, so they can say, well we did warn you, see".

The tail end of the area described has NEVER behaved in one block as far as I am aware. Why then should it join hands with the area that has just faulted (2011) plus a bit more, and do another 60mtr sprint? Answer it won't.

This is 'backside protectionism' at it's best.

edit on 26/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

It is almost as if, now that we are closing in on being able to maybe predict something, we will now predict so often that a true prediction will get lost in the noise. It almost looks deliberate to me.

P

I think it has to do with the Italian scientists being thrown in jail, can't remember if they actually were. So, if scientist say, yep were going to get hit by a big one, then if anything happens they can say, but we did warn you.

reply to post by AlexanderM


Perhaps scientists need to think a little bit like lawyers. Put lots of maths in it with percentages, possible timelines all with probability curves, all sorts of good things and then when one goes off they can just say, yes sir, we told you about this one ten years, three months and 5 days ago. It was you that did not take any notice.

After that you issue massive press releases about how the Government was told a decade ago and as usual sat on their hands playing pocket billiards. .

P

reply to post by pheonix358


Sounds about right!!

Prov,Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
usgs,2012-11-26 15:52:53, -19.132, 169.729, 4.7 mb, 10.0, Vanuatu

Location

Fingers in ears, eyes shut, now move forward into the minefield. Wait for the bang, then you know you found one.

~5.1 Mw. Precursor to biggie?????? No maybe not but first registered for about 9 days

reply to post by PuterMan


Why does that location give me the heebie jeebies? I always think a bigger one is coming when Vanuatu chimes in and I have no idea why.... why?

Im asking because I have no clue.

reply to post by radpetey

yep that one is getting up there, biggest one yet in the series, NOA had it as a 4.7ML
bbnet.gein.noa.gr...

I'll have a look later this evening and see whats been going on since the last map I did.
just a quick peek at koeri shows there has been another truckload of small quakes at BOZBURUN ACIKLARI-MUGLA
www.koeri.boun.edu.tr...



OK, heres the first map 00:00:00 to 19:04:04 hours after the first 4.4 quake (139 quakes)
then new map 19:39:41 to 55:18:37 hours after the first 4.4 quake
the 5.0 (usgs) is shown as a 4.8ML by koeri and happened 44:31:25 hours after the original 4.4
now there have been 300 since the 4.4
map of them all with elapsed time since the first quake on each events popup tag.

thumbs of those (click for larger image)

reply to post by MamaJ


I guess because that is how it feels. There are no so many quakes recorded around Vanuatu but when they are there are often bigger ones and it has a history of cracking of a Mag 7 at fairly regular intervals.

The average for Magnitude 6+ quakes in Vanuatu is one every ~40 days. Of course it does not always work out like that. This year saw a bunch in Feb (4) then March, April, July and October.

Mag 7+ average is every ~158 days and the last was Feb of this year. More often than not the Mag 7 quakes are in the period August to October. 6 of the last 9 occurred in that period. There was 1 in May, 1 in December and this year's February one.

Of course if Japan can potentially fault over 1000km to produce a Mag 10 then why not Vanuatu?

Boy, can I ever be stupid sometimes.
First, take a look at the list of earthquakes in Oklahoma. I'd copy the list- but- f.

www.okgeosurvey1.gov...

I was begining to think that the Oklahoma "swarm" of earthquakes had quieted down. November 21st, seemed to be the end point. Maybe this was some sort of "natural", regional, seismic activity.? Why not?

Then I look this morning. And, "they're back". I wonder why there was a break. Duh.

What was November 22nd in the U.S. of A.? Turkey Day. Thanksgiving. So. They shut down production on the 21st.
Yesterday, they primed all the pumps, so today it's back to sucking and blowing. You have to love earthquakes that follow the pattern of a production schedule, yet, somehow these "earthquakes" are still thought of as natural by the "researchers". The tiny one on the 23rd was a left over. There's always leftovers on Thanksgiving. I may have made the connection sooner but I'm Canadian eh. We had our turkey in October. We had a earthquake in Quebec last night. I'm still waiting for the one I'm going to feel. It's soon.

unrelated or not? moon power
activate.


www.simcoe.com...

www.guardian.co.uk...


Rant: so, i adapt and i'm using the freakin' new world wide earthquake page. and i'm not getting upset about the fact i like the old one better. and i even suck it up when someone posts a link to the old page and i refuse to go back. but, when i started using the new page, all the epicenters were circles. awhile back, suddenly they changed to squares. no big deal. i'll just finding settings and change it back to circles. crap. couldn't figure it out. it says circles on the fix it thingy. so, why was my squares. oh well. i adapt again and live with it. but. but my freakin' email list gives me a site that has an earthquake summary for the week. and the stupid thing shows everything in circles. (scream). i know there's circles. but mine's squares. so freakin' what. but i like the circles.

anyway, i think you can all see the clustering. or bunching. this person does...

www.decodedscience.com...

last week lots, this week, not so many. yet, the last 24 hours seem to have had regular bumps that "seem" to be building to something... how's that for a precise prediction. "something"




www.bgdailynews.com...

www.globaltvbc.com...

McGuinty has resigned as Primer.

I've been checking the USGS off and on all day, this was most definitely not listed an hour or two ago when I last checked. Late addition to the list from Canada:

4.2 13km E of Matane, Canada 2012-11-27 02:55:56 48.820°N 67.344°W 18.0
earthquake.usgs.gov...

2:55 AM eastern. It took this long to be listed?

Another late addition to the USGS list, a 2-pointer in Kentucky:

2.0 19km S of Salyersville, Kentucky 2012-11-27 19:52:02 37.578°N 83.108°W 19.6
earthquake.usgs.gov...

19:52, or 7:52 PM eastern, last night. What's up with late additions? Just the workload slowing them down getting these verified or something?

reply to post by PuterMan

Thanks for the data breakdown for the Vanuatu region. Interesting, that.

But about the 1,000 km to produce a mag 10 that you jokingly referred to. That report the member linked to mentioned a 3,000 km rupture. Okay, we all know that's incredibly unlikely but I'd balk at saying "never". Maybe it could happen as a once-in-several-thousand-years event. (Or even tens of thousands of years.) Maybe, just maybe! However remote the likelihood, I think we'd be presuming too much with our limited historical knowledge to say it absolutely cannot happen.

Okay, I admit I'm only playing devil's advocate with the above. Frankly, I appreciate that once we get up into the rarified atmosphere of mag 9 events, every decimal point of a mag bigger becomes more and more rare and the likelihood decreases at least logarithmically. (Perhaps even by log squared.)

Fundamentally, then, I agree: this sounds like a "CYA" kind of statement by that Japanese scientist and I seriously doubt that he really believes it's likely.

Back to Vanuatu: would it be more accurate to say that a theoretical 1,000-km rupture in that region might produce a low-range mag 9? Serious question.

Just one more question, if I may: with what is known about the various major subduction zones, where is it more likely that a mid-range mag 9 might occur? It would seem that most of Sth America is unlikely as they had one relatively recently -- half a century or so not being very long ago with such events. But where else? Is there any way that an event associated with the CSZ could produce such a monster, if (perhaps) the rupture extended even further north beyond that particular zone? Granted, in theory a low mag 9 has already been mooted for the CSZ, but a 9.5 -- 9.6?

Is there anywhere else that might qualify?

Best regards,

Mike

reply to post by JustMike

That report the member linked to mentioned a 3,000 km rupture.

Hi Mike. Unless I am mistaken I believe (without referring back to it) that the 3000km was in relation to the Mag 11.

From memory ~600 km would be a Mag 9 and the 1000 km was the 9.6.

Back to Vanuatu: would it be more accurate to say that a theoretical 1,000-km rupture in that region might produce a low-range mag 9? Serious question.

Yes indeed, or even a mid range mag 9 BUT as far as I am aware there is no historical record of anything anywhere near that although as you rightly point out that does not mean it has not.could not happen.

It would seem that most of Sth America is unlikely as they had one relatively recently -- half a century or so not being very long ago with such events. But where else? Is there any way that an event associated with the CSZ could produce such a monster, if (perhaps) the rupture extended even further north beyond that particular zone? Granted, in theory a low mag 9 has already been mooted for the CSZ, but a 9.5 -- 9.6?

In my very humble opinion the next Mag 9+ is more likely to be Cascadia than not. Don't forget that the rupture length is not the only factor. It is actually the surface area of the rupture and thus a rupture over 600km to a greater depth could theoretically produce a Mag 9.5, but again who knows? It seems it has not in the known or extrapolated past.

reply to post by PuterMan

I don't blame you for not recalling every detail as the post was a couple of days ago, but I had the advantage of only reading it this evening. (I've been catching up on the thread.)

The Japanese scientist gave a scenario of a 3,000 km rupture with a movement of 60m in order to produce a mag 10. He stated that a mag 11 would need a 20,000 km rupture and basically said we don't really need to consider that one.

Thanks also for your comments about the Vanuatu scenario. So, it's theoretically possible. Thankfully the likelihood is very low!

Re Cascadia: you've raised a point that I wish more would take note of and make better known. Yes, the rupture length is not the be-all and end-all, because if there is a greater surface area then logically more energy release is involved. And as total energy release is what really matters, there needs to be a lot more research not only of possible fault rupture lengths but potential surface area. I don't know if this crucial aspect can be determined in advance but it would be jolly helpful if it could.

You know, when the huge quake occurred off Aceh back in 2004, I recall it took quite a lot of scientists by surprise. It just wasn't a place they were really that concerned about, apparently. But then, it seems the big one off Japan also took some by surprise -- historical records notwithstanding.

I'd be very glad if we can go a few decades without any more such surprises. Sadly, when the CSZ does finally let go, scientists will probably not be so surprised. But there are doubtless many people in the region who still have no idea and hence will be.

reply to post by JustMike


Now you mention it, yes 3000. By the way this may interest you with regard to Mag 10 or 10.5 earthquakes. I found this a year or so ago. It relates to a SciFi mini-series - a fictional Hollywood portrayal of events related to an impossible 10.5 earthquake in Southern California. (Their words)

Main page
Separating fact from fiction

I have to say that whilst I think the Japanses one is possibly wrong, so is this one. If we just go on length then 1600 km (9.5/6) * 10 to get to 10.5/6 is 16,000. That certainly is not right round the Earth, but I agree is still pretty impossible. Taking that further to go to Mag 11 would be ~4 times that = 64,000km and that IS impossible.

A Mag 10 on those calcs would require a rupture of 1600 * 4 = 6,400 and not (am I getting muddled again) 3000.

I know they get 'em, but it sure feels like it's been a while. I was quite surprised to see this one pop up:

5.0 30km W of Jijel, Algeria 2012-11-28 18:15:29 36.839°N 5.422°E 10.2
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Yes spotted that one.

I too was surprised by this one that just came in

Prov,Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
nrcan,2012-10-30 02:48:58, 52.130, -132.320, 6.1, 18.6, 129 Km Ssw Of Sandspit Bc

Nothing unusual about it as everyone else had it at 6 or 6.1 but Canada had it as 5.6 ML

Prov,Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
nrcan,2012-10-30 02:49:00, 52.300, -132.370, 5.6, 10.0, 112 Km Ssw Of Sandspit Bc

It just goes to show that things do change a long way after the event.