Quake Watch 2012

Here's something weird that happened to me.

During my slumber last night I had a dream that 2 7+ magnitudes occurred, but I cannot remember if there were injuries. I woke up earlier and I was still convinced that they happened, so it was accepted. A few hours pass by and I check USGS to see that no 7s occurred after firmly believing they did.

Sneaky ole dreams.

EQ just happened in Chile, and here is a feeble attempt at a mag guess before USGS posts it: 5.6 to 5.9

Actually, that might be in Argentina... we'll see in a minute...


Yup.
5.9 BIO BIO- CHILE
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Ok, I'm getting warmer with this thing, it seems.

Oh look, they dropped the magnitude of the Chile quake to: drumroll...

5.6
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Guess I wasn't too far off after all.

reply to post by TrueAmerican



I shall have to send you a valentine of thanks on my secret valentine thread!

Glad you are getting to grips with your new toy TA
Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by angelchemuel


Thanks. Also, in regards to your request, I saw it, but you must understand that us lowly amateurs only can get into so many stations. Many networks are not accessible, and they are local only. So doing what you asked is not possible to the degree I'd like to. Sorry, hun. And Happy V-Day to you! I have no one unfortunately.

Not sure if this was posted, but pretty impressive.

reply to post by zworld

Not sure what you mean. The North American plate is moving to the west/southwest and the JDF/Gorda is moving east. Hence the subduction.

What I was meaning is that most people look at the arrows on Google Earth and say Oooh the plate is moving East, West, North or South depending which it is but forget to take into account that the continental plate is also moving and the convergence figure is the net effect of the two. In most cases both parts are moving but of course it does not have to be so. You will equally get convergence where the oceanic plate is static and only the continental plate is moving.

Basically what i am saying is the the information is skimpy at best.

And what of oceanic convergence at plate boundaries with no subduction and no activity? How does one explain that?

I am just throwing statements out here to get people thinking about plate tectonics and whether it is no settled as some think.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The Chileans however think it is a 5.9

2012/02/10 23:58:17 2012/02/11 02:58:17 -37.464 -73.894 19.5 5.9 Ml GUC Si 27 km al NO de Lebu

ssn.dgf.uchile.cl...

Indeed the USGS had it as 6.2 ML (5.9GS)

11 FEB 2012 ( 42)

ot = 02:58:23.40 +/- 1.39 BIO-BIO, CHILE
lat = -37.286 +/- 8.4
lon = -73.205 +/- 12.7 MAGNITUDE 5.9 (GS)
dep = 35.0 +/- 2.8

52 km (32 miles) SSW of Concepcion, Bio-Bio, Chile (pop 212,000)
54 km (33 miles) NE of Lebu, Bio-Bio, Chile (pop 20,000)
78 km (49 miles) WNW of Los Angeles, Bio-Bio, Chile (pop 117,000)
484 km (301 miles) SSW of SANTIAGO, Region Metropolitana, Chile

nph = 310 of 332 se = 0.68 FE=135 A

error ellipse = (264.0, 0.0, 19.3;174.0, 1.0, 12.7; 16.0, 88.0, 4.2)

mb = 5.6 (300) ML = 6.2 ( 10) mblg = 5.3 ( 11) md = 0.0 ( 0) MS = 0.0 ( 0)

neic.usgs.gov...

Whilst the tensor solutions show it as 5.6 Mw I think I will wait for the QED listing. It may have changed again by then

Originally posted by PuterMan
And what of oceanic convergence at plate boundaries with no subduction and no activity? How does one explain that?

Sea floor spreading along the mid-Atlantic Ridge. And just because there is no activity today, doesn't mean there won't be tomorrow. Take Charleston, SC for example. Big earthquake there, but it is on exactly such an aseismic boundary. That is best explained imo as an intraplate quake.

Totally open to new theories here, and I think much of the scientific community is too. It's just nothing else I have seen so far explains the mechanisms of earthquakes better than tectonic plate theory. The quakes are there at just about every plate juncture, defining them pretty darn clearly. And they keep repeating over and over. We know the planet is not growing from GPS readings, so expanding earth theory is out. And show me that the speed of P-waves in dense, pressurized Plasma is comparable to that of molten iron, and I'd be open to that too, as far as the core goes.

I mean seriously, come up with something better, and I am all ears. The Electric Universe stuff is interesting, but plate tectonics has become so widely accepted because it fits all the wave parameters, and provides the best overall solution.


And Global CMT= 5.5 on the Chile quake.
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

So I guess everyone's wrong. I can live with my estimate though, heck I nailed both the top and bottom of USGS's range, AND took .1 off my usual .4 spread. What more do they WANT? A real seismologist buried in all those wave formulas? Nevahhhhh! (ok, I know never say never) But by observing, you can learn a lot.

reply to post by PuterMan


Very informative and helpful. Thanks for your generosity in taking the time to teach those of us who know nowt!

Best -
5

reply to post by TrueAmerican

We know the planet is not growing from GPS readings, so expanding earth theory is out.

Toeing the party line TA?

As you say, the science is not settled but I also happen to think that to a good degree it is less settled than some think. There are other possible explanations for the seismicity.

Take a look at these (mostly from the geophysics thread with external links):
Tectonics
Plasma core waves
Is it growing? Yes it is
Comment from a geologist re sea floor age data
The plates don't move
Surge tectonics, Benioff zones etc

and a scientific paper

Abstract—Physical evidence indicates that a thermally driven Earth, plate
tectonics, and elastic rebound theory violate fundamental physical principles,
and that Earth is a quantified solid body, the size of which possibly increases
with time.

Source: PDF

Finally about the 18mm. I mentioned the 18mm. No one has explained that. 18mm that 'did not fit' from the GPS data and was removed. Spread over the life of the sea floor (as inaccurately determined by sampling that also omitted data because it did not fit) that is a massive change.

I have just done the calculation and I absolutely did not expect to get the result that I did. I thought it would be wildly out and finally disprove the cover up as nonsense.



Bearing in mind that I measured this on Google Earth and could be a few hundred km out, can you think of any explanation as to why these figures appear to confirm the expansion? How can that apparent 'coincidence' be explained?????

I could go on with many more links about why there may be problems with current mainstream theory but you probably won't read them anyway!

Why is it that the 5 greatest scientific paradigms ever brought forward are all dubious at best?


Not easy to find the 18mm bit on the blog

“It is significant to note that Robaudo and Harrison ‘expected that most VLBI stations will have up-down [radial] motions of only a few mm/year,’ and they then recommended that the vertical motion be ‘restricted to zero, because [they considered that] this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18mm/year.’

“Robaudo and Harrison were, in fact, faced with a daunting problem. When they calculated the global geodetic network from 15 years’ worth of observational data, they found, but failed to acknowledge, that the Earth was expanding by 18 millimetres per year. This value is very close to the value of 22 millimetres per year calculated here using oceanic mapping, especially when error margins are also considered.” (Terra Non Firma Earth, pp. 130-31, citing S. Robaudo and C.G. Harrison (1993) “Plate Tectonics from SLR and VLBI global data,” in D.E. Smith and D.L. Turcotte, eds., Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics, Geodynamics Series, Volume 23, American Geophysical Union.)

Reposting from an earlier discussion I participated in over at Astronomy.cast (PT episode):

Oh and by the way TA IF the earth was expanding it would not be registered in the east west movement as the divisions of 360° would remain and thus the angles between lon1 and lon2 etc would remain the same.

I have no idea how the GPS measure the distances but if it is done using latitude and longitude with a fixed circumference as the reference the change will not show surely?

reply to post by PuterMan


If you haven't read this JPL article, I think you might really want to:

The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Plenty more there about how they did it, and why they used the methodologies they did.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I will indeed read it, but as with all these things on has to wonder why there is so much variation in opinion? We see exactly the same in climate science. The mainstream say the science is settled and the alternatives say not, yet the arguments of the mainstream have in some cases been shown to be fraudulent.

This undoubtedly will be the case, not of fraud but misrepresentation, in other spheres and we see it in food science and medicine all the time to mention but two. I would NEVER take one source as gospel and certainly not one that has a vested interest in suppressing information.





Read it and that changes nothing. Independent my backside. NASA through and through and actually says absolutely nothing. That was a blog publication to appease the masses.

Oh of course, you are a 'company man' now. Sorry forgot that.



This is what it is all about. The suppression of data based on assuption

This study is based on data derived from fifteen years of observations of the SLR (side-looking radar) network and six years of the VLBI (very long baseline interferometry) network. In order to use all available information VLBI and SLR global data sets were combined in a least squares fashion to calculate station horizontal velocities. All significant data pertaining to a single site contribute to the station horizontal motion. The only constraint on the solution is that no vertical motion is allowed.

Emphasis by me. Source

TA and PM. I think the important thing to remember is that until proven to be fact, everything is just theory. we may never know all the intricate doings of the inner earth, or the outer earth, or outer space. In fact, as far as I can see, if we can get a handle on inner self weve done major accomplishments.

But all too often what happens in science is one theory gets so well accepted that somewhere along the line it becomes fact, and alternative theories get thrown to the dogs. Evolution is a classic example. If someone wants to think they came from apes thats their business, but the bottom line is its only a theory, never proven fact. Evolution within a species tree, yes, that has been proven. But the tadpole one day climbing out of the ocean doesnt work for me, and yet if you try and get a discussion going on what facts are known and expand on it you get ridiculed because people have chosen to consider a theory a fact.

Theories are theories, fact are facts and truth is truth.

reply to post by zworld

I think the important thing to remember is that until proven to be fact, everything is just theory.

Absolutely. I guess that is what I am saying - you cannot hold to the one view, you must examine all aspects.

I have found many more documents evidencing the complete ignoring of any vertical motion so now I am even more curious. One wonderful example spends virtually every paragraph saying that the vertical element is not statistically significant (read ignored) and then concludes with (paraphrased) more funding is needed to examin the changes due to post glacial rebound and the rise in sea level threatening mankind - having ignored the height component all the way through.

Scientists!! :shk: (One has to mention global climate warming change disaster to get more funding.)

Since I did this as part of a response on another thread I thought you may like to see it here.

reply to post by PuterMan


2010-09-03T16:35:47.77OZ M7.0

is that the Darfield, Christchurch quake?

*edit; never mind, I got it wrong, it was only Geonet said it was 7.1

reply to post by muzzy


Ye know the USGS muzzy, always good for a discount in earthquake magnitudes

No idea when it was changed. I was not recording the tensor solutions then.

reply to post by PuterMan


I edited my rant out after checking the relevant pages they all had 7.0M, but I'm sure it was higher to start with.

While I was looking I was reading this earthquake.usgs.gov...
theres an interesting pdf on the East Australian Plate there, it has cross sections
takes a while to open ( like 5 minutes for me)
hazards.cr.usgs.gov...

Hi guys

We just felt a strong rumbling in Lucerne/Switzerland!!!!

I called my mates and they said they house were shaking!!

I felt it too...my monitor moved and my chair moved...rumbling all over the place for about 3-6 seconds!!

What happened????

I called my mom he lives not far from me and confirmed the rumbling as well.

Something ain't right..it was never this strong before here, actually it never really happened like that.

Regards
N.