Quake Watch 2014

a reply to: wasobservingquietly
Yes this brought a lot of good memories for me too as I read the Desert mag & then your post I was right there with you as my family made an almost identical trip in this area, Saguaro, Lizards, Old Tucson, etc. I was intrigued with the volcanic material pozzuolana (pozzolana) the pipe was made out of (not Portland cement), the hot water springs needing to be cooled before the cattle could drink it , & the flour mills in black lava boulders. I wonder who made that pipe also & how old it is??? Could there be something in this area simmering under the surface & the recent quakes the start of something. Has been quiet the last few days. Will keep watching.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: PuterMan

And to Muzzy and other regular Quake Jockey's extraordinaire et al

Perhaps you've noticed this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

About an evidently now acknowledged increase in quakes . . . particularly 7 and above???

Thanks for that Bo, I was thinking the same thing. I would like to hear from the jockeys too. I know they'll disagree with me on the why, but what about the article itself stating that quakes have doubled this year alone, and that quakes have been increasing year after year. One poster suggested that its because their are more seismographs throughout the world, but I'm curious to how long every skeptic on every topic is going to continue using this excuse (increased awareness). Have we doubled the amount of seismo's this past year since the claim is that quakes themselves doubled?

originally posted by: ujustneverknow
Could one of you Quake Guru's please comment on The recent 6.9 in Mexico ?

I can't find any aftershocks.
Thank you in advance .

This is not showing at all on my earthquake.usgs.gov... it is not even there!!

At least 5 people have been killed after a powerful 7.1-magnitude quake struck the southern Mexican state of Chiapas and neighboring Guatemala.

rt.com...

Map 9.45 7/8/14 PST


A live look at my seismometer as it is recording the mag. 7.1 earthquake in Mexico.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Most welcome.

Indeed. That "more measuring tech" argument got old a LONG time ago.

Those of us noticing significant changes are not that stupid.

I know Puterman has been fierce to squash "increased quakes" prophetic related stuff historically. And, it's good that someone is around to squash false information.

It just appears to me from your thread and OP that the tide may have turned.

If so, I think it will escalate dramatically. How soon, I don't know.

a reply to: Char-Lee

A live look at my seismometer as it is recording the mag. 7.1 earthquake in Mexico.

twitter.com...
rt.com...

a reply to: Char-Lee

there hasn't been anything over 4.1, so USGS won't be showing them
SSN Mexico showing 38 aftershocks above M3
interctive map

muzzy in alberta

keeping an eye on that one, would like to see a few M5's soon or it could be another 6 or bigger if not

a reply to: muzzy

there hasn't been anything over 4.1

The original 7.1 was not on the map they don't usually go off the map right away?

a reply to: SeekingDepth

Very interesting about the pipes!
I had never heard of pozzolana!

I caught a few minutes about a huge buried wall,
on the History Channel this morning.
An old mystery about a buried 40 foot high,
20 mile square rock wall in Rockwall, Texas:

s8int.com...

s8int.com...

planetrockwall.com...

planetrockwall.com...

Which led to 73 pages of things I had mostly never heard of before!
I spent the whole afternoon there!
Some of them are really, really interesting!
Some of them, just interesting,
but I was probably all read out by that time!
The links to them are at the bottom of the articles.

Giants & tunnels beneath southern California:
s8int.com...

Another stone wall in Mississippi:
s8int.com...

A list of weird/awesome finds:
s8int.com...

Electrical connector embedded in rock:
s8int.com...

Petrified trees that used to be almost 900 feet tall!
Redwoods are under 500 feet!
s8int.com...

How many thing are out there that haven't been discovered yet???
Hopefully, some will be unearthed by earthquakes,
& not destroyed by them! (Gratuitous quake reference!)
WOQ

a reply to: Char-Lee

I'm sorry, but :facepalm:

You've obviously got it set for "1 Day, Magnitude 2.5+ Worldwide", as denoted by the amount, and lack of tons of tiny ones. "1 Day, Magnitude 2.5+ Worldwide" means it'll show ones above a 2.5, for the past 24 hours. Mexico's quake was at 11:23:59 UTC on July 7th, meaning for EDT folks, 7:23 AM. Your post was made at 12:33 EDT, on July 8. It had dropped off the map hours earlier, at 7:23 AM -- 24 hours afterward.

If you want to see it on the map, click "7 Days, Magnitude 2.5+ Worldwide".

Warning Minor outburst floods are occurring in Múlakvísl and Jökulsá á Sólheimasandi in connection with geothermal activity beneath the Mýrdalsjökull ice-cap.

en.vedur.is...

a reply to: ressiv
Been watching since you posted the uptick in quakes yesterday. Thanks for the Warning ressiv! "Katla hummm???"

Mýrdalsjökull is subject to large jökulhlaups when the subglacial volcano Katla erupts, roughly every 40 to 80 years. The eruption in 1755 is estimated to have had a peak discharge of 200,000 to 400,000 m3/s.
Link: en.wikipedia.org...



Myrdalssandur from Air

Mýrdalssandur, a 700 km2 desert southeast of Mýrdalsjökull, created by floods from Katla and changing glacial rivers. The Soil Conservation Service of Iceland has revegetated areas along the road to minimize the effect of drifting sand on road traffic.
A large area on Iceland’s southern coast is taken up with a vast desert-like plain of black volcanic sand. This, the Mýrdalssandur, is where material from the Mýrdalsjökull glacier has been deposited. It is also where the water from said glacier flows out to sea. So, when there is a jökulhaup (a sudden glacial flood), it would be best not to be on the Mýrdalssandur
Link: volcanohouse.is...

SE Arizona trembled again this morning.

earthquake.usgs.gov... rain%22%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Atrue%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3Atrue%2C%22timeZone%22%3A%22local%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B31.858127173746272%2C-11 0.51603386178612%5D%2C%5B33.134492259804325%2C-107.87931511178612%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%7B%22plates%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%7B%22map%22% 3Atrue%2C%22list%22%3Atrue%2C%22settings%22%3Afalse%2C%22help%22%3Afalse%7D%7D


Cause of these quakes still???
No Fracking in Area
www.decodedscience.com...

a reply to: Rezlooper

and that quakes have been increasing year after year.

No they have not in fact they have been decreasing as I have been at pains to point out. If you were a regular reader of my geophysical reports you would see that for example the rolling 52 week total of Mag 5 quakes (converted - read the report for an explanation) has come down since December 2012 from well over 6600 to just over 4200. In no way can that be considered an increase. If you take the USGS published figure that has stayed the same at about 1400 over the 52 rolling week periods.

Mag 6 started in Dec 2012 at 117, went up then came down and have gone up again.

In what way have Mag 7 increased? Through out that period it has been at 16 average and earlier, i.e. before 2012 it was higher.

By their nature these things are cyclical and all the counts were higher, but lower in the 70s/80s. Any so called expert who says otherwise is flying in the fact of the statistics in order to garner grant money in my opinion.

Just remember that I spend many many hours a week looking at earthquake statistics. I have charts going back to 2004 for calculated Mag 5 quakes from which time we climbed a huge peak and are now back down again to almost exactly the same level as pre-Banda Aceh. That is NOT an increase.

Yes one can attribute some increases to additional seismos but frankly if you look at 2000 onwards that argument falls down. One also cannot get accurate stats of M5 before this time as that IS affected by the number of instruments.

Can you prove that earthquakes have double this year? I would love to see such proof as I can prove they have not. Even though there have been a bunch of mag 6 the current 52 week rolling total is 134 as of last weeks report, by NO means the most there have been in a one year period, against 117 in the report of December 2012. That is not double, but please to show me I am wrong.


Incidentally, from the report on your thread

The average rate of big earthquakes — those larger than magnitude 7 — has been 10 per year since 1979, the study reports. That rate rose to 12.5 per year starting in 1992, and then jumped to 16.7 per year starting in 2010 — a 65 percent increase compared to the rate since 1979. This increase accelerated in the first three months of 2014 to more than double the average since 1979, the researchers report.

Excuse me? What sort of mumbo jumbo is that then? Do we take it they mean mag 7.1 upwards or Mag 8? There have never been 10 mag 8 in a year and way more than 16.7 in some years for Mag 7. I have not investigated because their wording is completely incomprehensible, but even if it was Mag 7.1 upwards then:

Click the image to enlarge

Which is not double because the scales used have changed since 1979. Statistically it easy to see the change happened around 1994. Don't forget that the Chile 9.6 - the largest quake - was a Mag 8.8 until it was reword to 9.6 Mw. I don't think they are comparing like for like, but that does not surprise me.

Also by the way bear in mind it it is not just the number of instruments but more importantly the number of networks contributing, and that has also grown substantially.

I could chart the quakes in excess of Mag 7.5 - another oft used cut off. That would show a steady decrease in Mag 7+ since 2004.

There's lies, there's damned lies and then there's statistics!



ETA I have just checked the Magnitude types in the ANSS data. They do indeed change from predominantly Ms to predominantly Mw around 1994 which is why the figures rise around that time.

These sort of changes have a BIG effect on the figures and unless you homogenise a catalog to all the same type you cannot compare accurately.

I cam produce the listing from 1979 if you want but you can just as easily get it yourselves from an ANSS search and that way you know I speak not with forked tongue.

a reply to: PuterMan

Thanks PuterMan.

I figured you could sort it out and inject solid truth into the issues.

I haven't kept track for quite a while as I'm still wrestling with dad's estate tasks and a range of other higher priorities.

I thought maybe there was something that had changed. But I knew you'd know one way or the other.

Long live the Master Quake Jockey.
.

a reply to: PuterMan

Well done as usual P-man. (oops, sorry. my humor needs an outlet once in a while)

I think man's little silliness at putting quakes into boxes labelled 5, 6, 7. etc is just silly.

What would be more valuable would be yearly totals of total energy output of (say) all quakes above mag 4.

That would be an informative value to determine if the world is becoming more active.

Otherwise we are just looking at when a plate gets hung up on a toenail so to speak.

P

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: Char-Lee

I'm sorry, but :facepalm:

You've obviously got it set for "1 Day, Magnitude 2.5+ Worldwide", as denoted by the amount, and lack of tons of tiny ones. "1 Day, Magnitude 2.5+ Worldwide" means it'll show ones above a 2.5, for the past 24 hours. Mexico's quake was at 11:23:59 UTC on July 7th, meaning for EDT folks, 7:23 AM. Your post was made at 12:33 EDT, on July 8. It had dropped off the map hours earlier, at 7:23 AM -- 24 hours afterward.

If you want to see it on the map, click "7 Days, Magnitude 2.5+ Worldwide".

Thanks, how strange normally I see them for several days they go through the colors and then go off. Maybe it was changed from where it has always been somehow.
:facepalm:

a reply to: pheonix358

I think man's little silliness at putting quakes into boxes labelled 5, 6, 7. etc is just silly.

What would be more valuable would be yearly totals of total energy output of (say) all quakes above mag 4.

I absolutely agree, and I have always said it is not the numbers that matter so much as the energy. One has to respond in the same format however. I think also that since the magnitudes are in fact a representation of the energy, on a logarithmic scale, the magnitudes are a valid scale to use and indeed I often reverse calculate the combined energy back to a single magnitude.

Energy is just as fraught with potholes as magnitudes in many ways as it too comes in different forms.

At the end of the day magnitudes or energy are not an exact science, but at least when comparing time scales we should attempt to use figures of a similar scale.

The global Magnitude 5 and upwards energy figures, converted where possible from Mb and ML to Mw is thus

Click the image to enlarge

Because the values are a straight conversion Mb > Mw this does not allow for picking up the lower Mb values that are 4.5 - 4.9 that should be 5.0+ Mw so these charts are not entirely accurate. I will fix my program to automatically drop down .5 magnitude when the conversion is called for.

Global Energy Output



As magnitude equivalents

Click the image to enlarge

To avoid the acknowledged error above the average energy per quake for Mag 6.5 upwards over the years 1995 to 2014 is



Must go do some work!!

Magnitude ML 4.4
Region GREECE
Date time 2014-07-11 09:46:05.3 UTC
Location 38.44 N ; 23.68 E
Depth 22 km
Distances 51 km N of Athens, Greece / pop: 729,137 / local time: 12:46:05.3 2014-07-11
8 km E of Chalkída, Greece / pop: 54,558 / local time: 12:46:05.3 2014-07-11
1 km N of Fílla, Greece / pop: 1,276 / local time: 12:46:05.3 2014-07-11

EMSC

More Arizona Quakes




Dark Orange Area=
• Middle Miocene to Oligocene Volcanic Rocks (11-38 Ma)
Lava, tuff, fine-grained intrusive rock, and diverse pyroclastic rocks. These compositionally variable volcanic rocks include basalt, andesite, dacite, and rhyolite. Thick felsic volcanic sequences form prominent cliffs and range fronts in the Black (Mohave County), Superstition, Kofa, Eagletail, Galiuro, and Chiricahua Mountains. This unit includes regionally extensive ash-flow tuffs, such as the Peach Springs tuff of northwestern Arizona and the Apache Leap tuff east of Phoenix. Most volcanic rocks are 20-30 Ma in southeastern Arizona and 15 to 25 Ma in central and western Arizona, but this unit includes some late Eocene rocks near the New Mexico border in east-central Arizona.
data.azgs.az.gov...#

Some more links relevant:
rev.seis.sc.edu...
arizonageology.blogspot.com...
www.azgs.az.gov...
www.azgs.az.gov...

originally posted by: SeekingDepth--->dacite, and rhyolite

Rather explosive then.

Let's hope it's all extinct.