Following the April 10th entry into earthquakes warning topic,
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/earthquakes-warning_1544.html,
It has now been noted that the Amazon Basin is pulsating,
http://www.physorg.com/news6572.html
It has also occurred a Major, 7.5 Mw magnitude aftershock in the Aceh quake rupture, on July 24th 2005, two Major Earthquakes occurred in the Aleutian Branch (Japan and California), and South America had its 7.8 Major Earthquake bringing balance up to the deficit. The Tonga Branch also had its share, only the Anatolia Branch still pending...
Here is the list of Major Earthquakes post-Aceh,for you to plot as I still don't find a way to insert a seismicity map into this 21st century forum!
FILE CREATED: Sat Sep 17 21:02:35 2005
Global Search Earthquakes= 8
Catalog Used: PDE
Date Range: Year: 2005 - 2005 Month: 01/Day: 01 Month: 09/Day: 17
Magnitude Range: 7.0 - 9.0
Data Selection: Historical & Preliminary Data
CAT YEAR MO DA ORIG TIME LAT LONG DEP MAGNITUDE
PDE-W 2005 02 05 122318.94 5.29 123.34 525 7.10 MwGS
PDE-W 2005 03 02 104212.23 -6.53 129.93 201 7.10 MwGS
PDE-W 2005 03 28 160936.53 2.09 97.11 30 8.70 MwHRV (Sumatra)
PDE-W 2005 06 13 224433.90 -19.99 -69.20 115 7.80 MwGS (Tarapaca)
PDE-W 2005 06 15 025053.18 41.30 -125.97 10 7.20 MwHRV (California)
PDE-W 2005 07 24 154206.21 7.92 92.19 16 7.50 Ms GS (Sumatra)
PDE-Q 2005 08 16 024628.39 38.25 142.08 36 7.20 MwHRV (Japan)
PDE-Q 2005 09 09 072643.59 -4.54 153.46 90 7.70 MwHRV (Tonga)
As the predicted follow ups happen accordingly, it will become evident that earthquakes are "related" and not "chaotic"
Regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone !
A Major Earthquake has now occurred in Northern Peru. The preliminary data is :
DATE TIME LAT LONG DEPTH MAGNITUDE
2005 09 26 015535 -5.66 -76.36 85 7.5 mbGS
Here is the link to the USGS page
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/usdlad.htm
DATE TIME LAT LONG DEPTH MAGNITUDE
2005 09 26 015535 -5.66 -76.36 85 7.5 mbGS
Here is the link to the USGS page
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/usdlad.htm
Rafael,
Nice to hear from you again.
Of course, I am feeling pretty good about this:
TRoc Posted: Jun 15 2005, 10:54 PM
"... Now add the fact that the Sumatra quake happened the week after winter solstice and the Tarapaca quake ocurred a week before the winter soltice (S.Hemisphere). [I won't go into the angular intersection of our magnetic field with extra-terrestial based radiations]
Given the follow-up Sumatra quake of 8.7 on 28 march 2005, what do you think of the possibility of a quake happening near Lima in the latter part of September of this year, in the neighborhood of 7.4?
TRoc "
Three days after the fall equinox (1/4 node), the symmetry was returned.
Now the question is, " when will the northern hemisphere return its' symmetry?"
TRoc
Nice to hear from you again.
Of course, I am feeling pretty good about this:
TRoc Posted: Jun 15 2005, 10:54 PM
"... Now add the fact that the Sumatra quake happened the week after winter solstice and the Tarapaca quake ocurred a week before the winter soltice (S.Hemisphere). [I won't go into the angular intersection of our magnetic field with extra-terrestial based radiations]
Given the follow-up Sumatra quake of 8.7 on 28 march 2005, what do you think of the possibility of a quake happening near Lima in the latter part of September of this year, in the neighborhood of 7.4?
TRoc "
Three days after the fall equinox (1/4 node), the symmetry was returned.
Now the question is, " when will the northern hemisphere return its' symmetry?"
TRoc
Rafael,
Here is a similar Earth-bulge to the 1 you mentioned before..
Mystery Bulge in Oregon Still Growing
If you Google on "Yosemite Park - lake moving", you can get another ground bulge story.
Following my last post, the Northern California (offshore) quake could repeat with about a 6.7 quake around the 28th of September. However, I'm not so sure that it won't be "dampened" by the Episodic Tremor and Slip (ETS) event going on right now in the Cascadia margin near Vancouver. If that is the case, and the 2 "probabilities" line up, it could set off a major rupture in the Cascade Subduction Zone. That would be near the Sumatra quake level - 8.8 - 9.2. There is a great amount of energy in this overdue fault, and all the recent activity in Alaska and California have geographically "funneled" more energy in that direction. Watch for 1 (or both?) of these in the next week.
Links:
Slow Seismic Slip Event Underway in Pacific Northwest
'Slow' earthquakes are pushing Vancouver Island toward Japan
T.Roc
Here is a similar Earth-bulge to the 1 you mentioned before..
Mystery Bulge in Oregon Still Growing
If you Google on "Yosemite Park - lake moving", you can get another ground bulge story.
Following my last post, the Northern California (offshore) quake could repeat with about a 6.7 quake around the 28th of September. However, I'm not so sure that it won't be "dampened" by the Episodic Tremor and Slip (ETS) event going on right now in the Cascadia margin near Vancouver. If that is the case, and the 2 "probabilities" line up, it could set off a major rupture in the Cascade Subduction Zone. That would be near the Sumatra quake level - 8.8 - 9.2. There is a great amount of energy in this overdue fault, and all the recent activity in Alaska and California have geographically "funneled" more energy in that direction. Watch for 1 (or both?) of these in the next week.
Links:
Slow Seismic Slip Event Underway in Pacific Northwest
'Slow' earthquakes are pushing Vancouver Island toward Japan
T.Roc
All,
Follow up.
Obviously, no "lining up", or adding of energy. The slow slip event moved in a South-Westerly direction, contra to its' normal movement. Here is my case for the "dampening" effect.
A string (literally) of earthquakes occurred during the time frame I mentioned. Starting with
Magnitude 4.2 - OFF THE COAST OF OREGON
2005 September 26 16:52:45 UTC
43.108°N, 126.450°W
Magnitude 2.1 - OFFSHORE OREGON
2005 September 26 18:11:04 UTC
44.322°N, 124.591°W
Magnitude 3.0 - MOUNT ST. HELENS AREA, WASHINGTON
2005 September 27 15:36:17 UTC
46.200°N, 122.192°W
Magnitude 1.2 - WASHINGTON
2005 September 26 17:52:50 UTC
It is unfortunate that I can not post the map here (the link always goes to the current period, and past events are in list form only). But, from the area I mentioned (N.Cal/S.Ore), in a North-West direction, and terminating in the are of the ETS event (gaged at 6.7 "energy") this "line up" of quakes happened. You could also look at it as the ETS being a negative phase wave of 6.7 mag. absorbing any smaller quakes in that direction (+phase).
When the ETS event ended (~ Sept 28-29), this swarm occurred:
3.8 2005/10/02 01:10:01 44.533 -115.990 5.0 5 km ( 3 mi) ENE of Cascade, ID
3.5 2005/09/30 14:59:36 44.573 -116.051 5.0 6 km ( 4 mi) N of Cascade, ID
3.7 2005/09/29 13:50:16 44.508 -116.047 5.0 SOUTHERN IDAHO
3.8 2005/09/28 23:20:45 44.593 -116.049 5.0 9 km ( 5 mi) N of Cascade, ID
3.5 2005/09/28 23:18:00 44.531 -115.994 5.0 4 km ( 3 mi) ENE of Cascade, ID
3.8 2005/09/28 05:27:31 44.603 -116.064 5.0 10 km ( 6 mi) N of Cascade, ID
3.8 2005/09/28 05:27:32 44.603 -116.064 5.0 SOUTHERN IDAHO
2.6 2005/09/27 20:55:20 44.614 -116.106 5.0 SOUTHERN IDAHO
This begs the question: When the ETS direction "returns" to normal, does it do an immediate direction change, or spin around 180 degrees? This swarm is at 90 degrees to the line of earthquakes mentioned above. There were similar sized quakes, continuing in this 90 degree direction, in Utah and Colorado during the same time frame.
Interesting.
Misc. news:
Oct. 6, 2005
Quake Prediction Gets Shake-Up
From that article: "They were particularly interested in the relative frequency of major and minor quakes, what seismologists call the b-value.
The lower the b-value, the greater the increase in tension in the Earth's crust, which entails a greater risk of major quakes. While this has been known for decades, the FOI model uses the information in a new way to plot the b-value ratios in time and space.
"We found that all of the major tremors were clearly visible in a time perspective. The b-value dropped drastically before the big quakes," said FOI researcher Leif Persson in a statement. "
Earth's Tides Set Off Quakes
From that article: ""We're talking about an earthquake that was bound to happen anyway," explained the study's lead author, Elizabeth Cochran, a UCLA graduate student. "(Tectonic) plates are stressed every day with tidal stresses, but sometimes this is enough to push it over the edge."
The added stress could cause an earthquake to occur hours earlier than if the high tides were not present, she said. Conversely, it could keep an earthquake from happening right away if it counterbalanced another stress on the fault line in question. "
This last link talks about one of the "causals" that I was using when I made the Volcanic predictions on the last thread, as well as for earthquake.
T.Roc
Follow up.
Obviously, no "lining up", or adding of energy. The slow slip event moved in a South-Westerly direction, contra to its' normal movement. Here is my case for the "dampening" effect.
A string (literally) of earthquakes occurred during the time frame I mentioned. Starting with
Magnitude 4.2 - OFF THE COAST OF OREGON
2005 September 26 16:52:45 UTC
43.108°N, 126.450°W
Magnitude 2.1 - OFFSHORE OREGON
2005 September 26 18:11:04 UTC
44.322°N, 124.591°W
Magnitude 3.0 - MOUNT ST. HELENS AREA, WASHINGTON
2005 September 27 15:36:17 UTC
46.200°N, 122.192°W
Magnitude 1.2 - WASHINGTON
2005 September 26 17:52:50 UTC
It is unfortunate that I can not post the map here (the link always goes to the current period, and past events are in list form only). But, from the area I mentioned (N.Cal/S.Ore), in a North-West direction, and terminating in the are of the ETS event (gaged at 6.7 "energy") this "line up" of quakes happened. You could also look at it as the ETS being a negative phase wave of 6.7 mag. absorbing any smaller quakes in that direction (+phase).
When the ETS event ended (~ Sept 28-29), this swarm occurred:
3.8 2005/10/02 01:10:01 44.533 -115.990 5.0 5 km ( 3 mi) ENE of Cascade, ID
3.5 2005/09/30 14:59:36 44.573 -116.051 5.0 6 km ( 4 mi) N of Cascade, ID
3.7 2005/09/29 13:50:16 44.508 -116.047 5.0 SOUTHERN IDAHO
3.8 2005/09/28 23:20:45 44.593 -116.049 5.0 9 km ( 5 mi) N of Cascade, ID
3.5 2005/09/28 23:18:00 44.531 -115.994 5.0 4 km ( 3 mi) ENE of Cascade, ID
3.8 2005/09/28 05:27:31 44.603 -116.064 5.0 10 km ( 6 mi) N of Cascade, ID
3.8 2005/09/28 05:27:32 44.603 -116.064 5.0 SOUTHERN IDAHO
2.6 2005/09/27 20:55:20 44.614 -116.106 5.0 SOUTHERN IDAHO
This begs the question: When the ETS direction "returns" to normal, does it do an immediate direction change, or spin around 180 degrees? This swarm is at 90 degrees to the line of earthquakes mentioned above. There were similar sized quakes, continuing in this 90 degree direction, in Utah and Colorado during the same time frame.
Interesting.
Misc. news:
Oct. 6, 2005
Quake Prediction Gets Shake-Up
From that article: "They were particularly interested in the relative frequency of major and minor quakes, what seismologists call the b-value.
The lower the b-value, the greater the increase in tension in the Earth's crust, which entails a greater risk of major quakes. While this has been known for decades, the FOI model uses the information in a new way to plot the b-value ratios in time and space.
"We found that all of the major tremors were clearly visible in a time perspective. The b-value dropped drastically before the big quakes," said FOI researcher Leif Persson in a statement. "
Earth's Tides Set Off Quakes
From that article: ""We're talking about an earthquake that was bound to happen anyway," explained the study's lead author, Elizabeth Cochran, a UCLA graduate student. "(Tectonic) plates are stressed every day with tidal stresses, but sometimes this is enough to push it over the edge."
The added stress could cause an earthquake to occur hours earlier than if the high tides were not present, she said. Conversely, it could keep an earthquake from happening right away if it counterbalanced another stress on the fault line in question. "
This last link talks about one of the "causals" that I was using when I made the Volcanic predictions on the last thread, as well as for earthquake.
T.Roc
Hi All, Troc,
Well, is hard to follow up all that information which I read with interest, after all, parts always add to the total. In any case, here is what I think:
- First, as predicted, one of the missing Major Earthquakes this year did take place in the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone in South America in 2005 06 13, a 7.8 Mw magnitude. Then the California Major Earthquake, Japan, etc...
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/earthquakes-warning_1544.html,
- Now, the "Anatolia Branch", as predicted, has had its Major Earthquake which was the only one still pending... (EARTHQUAKES PREDICTIONS REVIEWED posted on September 18th 2005)
The news is on today's weblog:
- Huge quake rocks South Asia, thousands feared dead , 22 minutes ago ...
If you look at a Tectonic Plates Map of the World you will notice a HUGE TRIPLE JUNCTION in the Sumatra- Borneo region which is where (on December 26th 2004)the big release of energy started the sequence of major earthquakes mentioned in this forum. Also, if you plot earthquakes on a map, taking into account its depth, there comes a point where one can actually "see" a slow rupture taking place, or that this or that had to happen. I am sure Troc gets a glimpse of that also.
- Secondly, I do not give a lot of statistical importance to microseisms, or those below magnitude 4.0. Since there is thousands of them, they can occurr anywhere and everywhere and at all times, so they can also be interpreted in any way. Although they could lead you into "something" they would still be there whithout the "something".
- Third and last, I congratulate the people who created and run this webplace whereat views are exchanged and information of all kinds is found, not to mention Internet, itself!
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone apex in Arica, Chile.
Well, is hard to follow up all that information which I read with interest, after all, parts always add to the total. In any case, here is what I think:
- First, as predicted, one of the missing Major Earthquakes this year did take place in the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone in South America in 2005 06 13, a 7.8 Mw magnitude. Then the California Major Earthquake, Japan, etc...
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/earthquakes-warning_1544.html,
- Now, the "Anatolia Branch", as predicted, has had its Major Earthquake which was the only one still pending... (EARTHQUAKES PREDICTIONS REVIEWED posted on September 18th 2005)
The news is on today's weblog:
- Huge quake rocks South Asia, thousands feared dead , 22 minutes ago ...
If you look at a Tectonic Plates Map of the World you will notice a HUGE TRIPLE JUNCTION in the Sumatra- Borneo region which is where (on December 26th 2004)the big release of energy started the sequence of major earthquakes mentioned in this forum. Also, if you plot earthquakes on a map, taking into account its depth, there comes a point where one can actually "see" a slow rupture taking place, or that this or that had to happen. I am sure Troc gets a glimpse of that also.
- Secondly, I do not give a lot of statistical importance to microseisms, or those below magnitude 4.0. Since there is thousands of them, they can occurr anywhere and everywhere and at all times, so they can also be interpreted in any way. Although they could lead you into "something" they would still be there whithout the "something".
- Third and last, I congratulate the people who created and run this webplace whereat views are exchanged and information of all kinds is found, not to mention Internet, itself!
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone apex in Arica, Chile.
Rafael,
Congratulations to you as well ! Your work on "the Big Picture" is very good.
What next is a good question. I will jump to the other thread you started for some comments.
T.Roc
Congratulations to you as well ! Your work on "the Big Picture" is very good.
What next is a good question. I will jump to the other thread you started for some comments.
T.Roc
Hi all,
Recent news:
(reported at Physorg.com)
This was right on schedule, at around 14 months (+/- 2 mo) from the last one, mentioned in this thread previously.
The same type of quake(s) occurred near the Juan de Fuca plate (offshore Oregon) over the past few days. Tinnitus has been very active during this same time frame.
4.3 2007/02/03 02:22:42 43.76 -127.70 10.0 276 km WNW of Bandon, OR
4.1 2007/01/31 15:38:46 42.38 -125.43 10.0 84 km W of Gold Beach, OR
4.4 2007/01/31 15:24:47 42.36 -126.71 10.0 187 km WSW of Port Orford, OR
However, it appears to be over:
(reported at Physorg.com)
This was right on schedule, at around 14 months (+/- 2 mo) from the last one, mentioned in this thread previously.
The same type of quake(s) occurred near the Juan de Fuca plate (offshore Oregon) over the past few days. Tinnitus has been very active during this same time frame.
4.3 2007/02/03 02:22:42 43.76 -127.70 10.0 276 km WNW of Bandon, OR
4.1 2007/01/31 15:38:46 42.38 -125.43 10.0 84 km W of Gold Beach, OR
4.4 2007/01/31 15:24:47 42.36 -126.71 10.0 187 km WSW of Port Orford, OR
However, it appears to be over:
Recent News
FEBRUARY 4 EPISODIC TREMOR AND SLIP UPDATE:
The current Episodic Tremor and Slip event appears to have stopped. There has been no significant tremor activity on southern Vancouver Island during the past 48 hours.
ETS events are a normal part of the subduction process and occur roughly every 14 months. While the probability of a major earthquake increases during the time of ETS events it still remains very low.
Boy, THAT is one heck of a DETAILED prediction.
You are saying that there will be a big earthquake this year in approx 1/3 the world.
I predict that sometime this year a Catagory 4 Hurricane will form in the Atlantic Basin.
Arthur
Well one would think its OBVIOUS.
As you said:
SUMATRA accounts for nearly 20% of global seismicity, in other words one in five large earthquakes take place in or around Sumatra.
Which means one would EXPECT periodic large earthquakes if one lives in or around Sumatra.
Like the people who live on the West Coast of the US EXPECT periodic large earthquakes.
But if you say this quake might happen within SIX YEARS, its really not actionable data.
What is someone going to do, leave their home for 6 years till the threat is over?
Arthur
Recent news:
QUOTE
Seismologists warned that a "catastrophic" earthquake could strike the southwestern coast of British Columbia soon, Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported.
The experts noted rumblings from deep beneath the Pacific Ocean, along Vancouver Island, which could foretell a giant quake. But they said the probability of a quake was still low.
..
The newspaper said the activity, known to scientists as episodic tremor and slip, emanates from the crush of the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate beneath the North American Plate, which is Canada's shoreline.
The Juan de Fuca plate runs from Vancouver Island on Canada's West Coast south to Northern California in the United States.
© 2007 AFP
The experts noted rumblings from deep beneath the Pacific Ocean, along Vancouver Island, which could foretell a giant quake. But they said the probability of a quake was still low.
..
The newspaper said the activity, known to scientists as episodic tremor and slip, emanates from the crush of the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate beneath the North American Plate, which is Canada's shoreline.
The Juan de Fuca plate runs from Vancouver Island on Canada's West Coast south to Northern California in the United States.
© 2007 AFP
(reported at Physorg.com)
This was right on schedule, at around 14 months (+/- 2 mo) from the last one, mentioned in this thread previously.
The same type of quake(s) occurred near the Juan de Fuca plate (offshore Oregon) over the past few days. Tinnitus has been very active during this same time frame.
4.3 2007/02/03 02:22:42 43.76 -127.70 10.0 276 km WNW of Bandon, OR
4.1 2007/01/31 15:38:46 42.38 -125.43 10.0 84 km W of Gold Beach, OR
4.4 2007/01/31 15:24:47 42.36 -126.71 10.0 187 km WSW of Port Orford, OR
However, it appears to be over:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Seismologists warned that a "catastrophic" earthquake could strike the southwestern coast of British Columbia soon, Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported. The experts noted rumblings from deep beneath the Pacific Ocean, along Vancouver Island, which could foretell a giant quake. But they said the probability of a quake was still low. .. The newspaper said the activity, known to scientists as episodic tremor and slip, emanates from the crush of the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate beneath the North American Plate, which is Canada's shoreline. The Juan de Fuca plate runs from Vancouver Island on Canada's West Coast south to Northern California in the United States. © 2007 AFP |
(reported at Physorg.com)
This was right on schedule, at around 14 months (+/- 2 mo) from the last one, mentioned in this thread previously.
The same type of quake(s) occurred near the Juan de Fuca plate (offshore Oregon) over the past few days. Tinnitus has been very active during this same time frame.
4.3 2007/02/03 02:22:42 43.76 -127.70 10.0 276 km WNW of Bandon, OR
4.1 2007/01/31 15:38:46 42.38 -125.43 10.0 84 km W of Gold Beach, OR
4.4 2007/01/31 15:24:47 42.36 -126.71 10.0 187 km WSW of Port Orford, OR
However, it appears to be over:
Recent News
FEBRUARY 4 EPISODIC TREMOR AND SLIP UPDATE:
The current Episodic Tremor and Slip event appears to have stopped. There has been no significant tremor activity on southern Vancouver Island during the past 48 hours.
ETS events are a normal part of the subduction process and occur roughly every 14 months. While the probability of a major earthquake increases during the time of ETS events it still remains very low.
I QUOTE FROM THE BEGINING OF THIS TOPIC:
Following the April 10th entry into earthquakes warning topic,
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/earthquakes-warning_1544.html,
It is hereby added a new factor and update the:
"RISK FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT (FOR EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING)"
- Equidistant distribution of Big and Major Earthquakes in space (Historic Seismicity)
- Equidistant distribution of Big and Major Earthquakes in Time (Historic Seismicity)
- Triggering Influence of Big and Major Earthquakes
- Increased Activity Areas at shallow, intermediate and sub-crust depths
- Activity at sub-slab depths (Mantle Response Earthquakes. MRE´s)
- Activity at or near the Liquifaction Zone of the mantle (EDE´s)
- RULE OF TEN (NEW FACTOR)
- Slab Response Earthquakes (SRE´s)
- Crust Response Earthquakes (CRE´s)
- The globe is divided into 16 AREAS are defined for analisys and forecasting.
The RULE of TEN factor, arises from analisys and observation of earthquakes data. It shows (globally) an almost exact correlation between earthquakes of magnitudes >8.0, >7.0 and >6.0 of 1, 10 and 100, that is, for each earthquake >8.0 there are 10 each earthquakes >7.0 and 100 each earthquakes >6.0.
Once earthquake data is applied to each of the areas defined, this RULE of TEN is still valid to most of these areas. Once analized, some of these areas show that in order for the rule to apply, certain magnitude earthquakes are bound to take place in the near future.
Such is the case for, and a (preliminary) forecast is hereby issued, of:
" In the next six coming years, an earthquake of magnitude >8.0 could take place in the following areas:
1) SUMATRA/BORNEO area
2) PAPUA/NEW GUINEA area
3) TONGA/NEW ZEALAND area
4) HIMALAYAS/ANATOLIA area
5) CHINA area
In the next coming year, an earthquake of magnitude >7.0 could take place in the following areas:
6) MEXICO/CARIBBEAN area
7) NORTH AMERICA area
8) SOUTH AMERICA area
The areas as defined and shown in:
http://sismomundo.blogspot.com/2007/01/glo...city-zones.html
of the
http://sismomundo.blogspot.com/
This preliminary forecast will be reviewed and updated monthly.
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone!
Following the April 10th entry into earthquakes warning topic,
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/earthquakes-warning_1544.html,
It is hereby added a new factor and update the:
"RISK FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT (FOR EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING)"
- Equidistant distribution of Big and Major Earthquakes in space (Historic Seismicity)
- Equidistant distribution of Big and Major Earthquakes in Time (Historic Seismicity)
- Triggering Influence of Big and Major Earthquakes
- Increased Activity Areas at shallow, intermediate and sub-crust depths
- Activity at sub-slab depths (Mantle Response Earthquakes. MRE´s)
- Activity at or near the Liquifaction Zone of the mantle (EDE´s)
- RULE OF TEN (NEW FACTOR)
- Slab Response Earthquakes (SRE´s)
- Crust Response Earthquakes (CRE´s)
- The globe is divided into 16 AREAS are defined for analisys and forecasting.
The RULE of TEN factor, arises from analisys and observation of earthquakes data. It shows (globally) an almost exact correlation between earthquakes of magnitudes >8.0, >7.0 and >6.0 of 1, 10 and 100, that is, for each earthquake >8.0 there are 10 each earthquakes >7.0 and 100 each earthquakes >6.0.
Once earthquake data is applied to each of the areas defined, this RULE of TEN is still valid to most of these areas. Once analized, some of these areas show that in order for the rule to apply, certain magnitude earthquakes are bound to take place in the near future.
Such is the case for, and a (preliminary) forecast is hereby issued, of:
" In the next six coming years, an earthquake of magnitude >8.0 could take place in the following areas:
1) SUMATRA/BORNEO area
2) PAPUA/NEW GUINEA area
3) TONGA/NEW ZEALAND area
4) HIMALAYAS/ANATOLIA area
5) CHINA area
In the next coming year, an earthquake of magnitude >7.0 could take place in the following areas:
6) MEXICO/CARIBBEAN area
7) NORTH AMERICA area
8) SOUTH AMERICA area
The areas as defined and shown in:
http://sismomundo.blogspot.com/2007/01/glo...city-zones.html
of the
http://sismomundo.blogspot.com/
This preliminary forecast will be reviewed and updated monthly.
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone!
QUOTE
In the next coming year, an earthquake of magnitude >7.0 could take place in the following areas:
6) MEXICO/CARIBBEAN area
7) NORTH AMERICA area
8) SOUTH AMERICA area
6) MEXICO/CARIBBEAN area
7) NORTH AMERICA area
8) SOUTH AMERICA area
Boy, THAT is one heck of a DETAILED prediction.
You are saying that there will be a big earthquake this year in approx 1/3 the world.
I predict that sometime this year a Catagory 4 Hurricane will form in the Atlantic Basin.
Arthur
adoucette,
1) I am trying to hone a system. Publishing it is one way of being serious about it.
2) Once I get the forecast right for an area, system of coordinates, subduction zone or continental collision zone , WE can ALL work together towards obtaining a more exact location or timing within each system.
3) The reason for numbers 6, 7 and 8 of the forecast is that, although there is a statistical chance of a Big Earthquake (magn. 8.0) in North America, the strike slip type of fault has not produced much larger than 7.6 magnitude earthquakes of late. In the case of South America, there has taken place 3 each magnitude 8.0 in the las 13 years, so I choose a strong seven instead. In any case forecasting a 7.0 magn. for North America equals to forecasting ANOTHER KATRINA in the near future, or sometime this year, which, you do not.
4) Unless my english is not so clear, I am not saying there will be a big earthquake this year in one third of the world. What I am saying is that in the next SIX years there could be a Big earthquake in each one of the mentioned areas. So I suggest we wait six years and check how far from reality we both may be.
What I like best of my forecasting method is that is not done with the help of a very powerful computer or many million dollars!
Greetings, from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone.
1) I am trying to hone a system. Publishing it is one way of being serious about it.
2) Once I get the forecast right for an area, system of coordinates, subduction zone or continental collision zone , WE can ALL work together towards obtaining a more exact location or timing within each system.
3) The reason for numbers 6, 7 and 8 of the forecast is that, although there is a statistical chance of a Big Earthquake (magn. 8.0) in North America, the strike slip type of fault has not produced much larger than 7.6 magnitude earthquakes of late. In the case of South America, there has taken place 3 each magnitude 8.0 in the las 13 years, so I choose a strong seven instead. In any case forecasting a 7.0 magn. for North America equals to forecasting ANOTHER KATRINA in the near future, or sometime this year, which, you do not.
4) Unless my english is not so clear, I am not saying there will be a big earthquake this year in one third of the world. What I am saying is that in the next SIX years there could be a Big earthquake in each one of the mentioned areas. So I suggest we wait six years and check how far from reality we both may be.
What I like best of my forecasting method is that is not done with the help of a very powerful computer or many million dollars!
Greetings, from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone.
Your English is fine, what I find somewhat pointless is that you are making a prediction of an event that we KNOW happens periodically ANYWAY and then your "PREDICTION" covers such a HUGE area and a LONG period of time.
My point is that I can also predict similar global events if I am that NON-SPECIFIC as to time and place and then FURTHER hedge my bets by saying COULD instead of WOULD.
Arthur
My point is that I can also predict similar global events if I am that NON-SPECIFIC as to time and place and then FURTHER hedge my bets by saying COULD instead of WOULD.
Arthur
adoucette,
OK, thanks.
Rafael
OK, thanks.
Rafael
I didn't mean to insult.
I just don't understand why you think there is merit to such a GENERAL prediction, both in location and time.
I mean all those areas have LARGE areas that are known to be prone to rather frequent (than most areas) and often large earthquakes.
Arthur
I just don't understand why you think there is merit to such a GENERAL prediction, both in location and time.
I mean all those areas have LARGE areas that are known to be prone to rather frequent (than most areas) and often large earthquakes.
Arthur
adoucette,
If we judge RP's statistical methodology the same way that we judge Quantum Mechanics, then, after a few years, we would say that his method is "the most accurate theory in EQ prediction, ever", correct? Just a statement on the value of statistical analysis, in general.
"A wavefunction will collapse somewhere along a wall of electrons, in an experiment lasting a certain amount of time." You would need to study the bigger picture of QM to get the full value of the probabilistic approach.
I would suggest (to you) the same thing for the work of Rafael, including a large body of past events, magnitudes, and geographical patterns. I think that they are better than what is coming out of our tax funded programs, if for no other reason than he is risking the "global" perspective. Most geologists are only concerned with their next check, and the 10 to 100 year "predictions" that keep anyone from saying "why didn't you tell us" sort of thing, and usually limited to their own backyards.
His information could prove very valuable in combination with other prediction methods, which lack a proven method for magnitude estimation.
ciao!
T.Roc
If we judge RP's statistical methodology the same way that we judge Quantum Mechanics, then, after a few years, we would say that his method is "the most accurate theory in EQ prediction, ever", correct? Just a statement on the value of statistical analysis, in general.
"A wavefunction will collapse somewhere along a wall of electrons, in an experiment lasting a certain amount of time." You would need to study the bigger picture of QM to get the full value of the probabilistic approach.
I would suggest (to you) the same thing for the work of Rafael, including a large body of past events, magnitudes, and geographical patterns. I think that they are better than what is coming out of our tax funded programs, if for no other reason than he is risking the "global" perspective. Most geologists are only concerned with their next check, and the 10 to 100 year "predictions" that keep anyone from saying "why didn't you tell us" sort of thing, and usually limited to their own backyards.
His information could prove very valuable in combination with other prediction methods, which lack a proven method for magnitude estimation.
ciao!
T.Roc
Arthur,
I do not feel in the very least insulted.
I do not think there is merit in such an obvious "prediction"
(QUOTE)
"I mean all those areas have LARGE areas that are known to be prone to rather frequent (than most areas) and often large earthquakes. Arthur "
If this is so, Why didn't (anybody) sciencetists warn people/governments in SUMATRA that a large earthquake "could" take place within six years (before 2004 12 26)?
The point is that "science" is not up to the required credibility BECAUSE is mostly based upon unknown or doubtful facts. One such case is the CHAOS theory in relationship to earthquake occurrance. Your quoted statement above and my forecasting say exactly the contrary, that large earthquakes are known to be prone to take place in some areas more than others.
I read last night a science paper by Dr. Kanamori who in 1977 did not know, did not take into account, did not acknowledge, did not draw the right dots, for large earthquakes in the SUMATRA territory, in his "large earthquakes in the world" publication:
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/faculty/kanamor...micity_1983.pdf
STATISTICAL FACT (r.peralta/physorg.com)
SUMATRA accounts for nearly 20% of global seismicity, in other words one in five large earthquakes take place in or around Sumatra.
All in all, I appreciate Arthur's attention to the subject and I am sure this is a good start to getting some serious and interesting developments in this forum.
With all due respect to Dr. Kanamori, Arthur, Troc and all,
Best regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone.
I do not feel in the very least insulted.
I do not think there is merit in such an obvious "prediction"
(QUOTE)
"I mean all those areas have LARGE areas that are known to be prone to rather frequent (than most areas) and often large earthquakes. Arthur "
If this is so, Why didn't (anybody) sciencetists warn people/governments in SUMATRA that a large earthquake "could" take place within six years (before 2004 12 26)?
The point is that "science" is not up to the required credibility BECAUSE is mostly based upon unknown or doubtful facts. One such case is the CHAOS theory in relationship to earthquake occurrance. Your quoted statement above and my forecasting say exactly the contrary, that large earthquakes are known to be prone to take place in some areas more than others.
I read last night a science paper by Dr. Kanamori who in 1977 did not know, did not take into account, did not acknowledge, did not draw the right dots, for large earthquakes in the SUMATRA territory, in his "large earthquakes in the world" publication:
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/faculty/kanamor...micity_1983.pdf
STATISTICAL FACT (r.peralta/physorg.com)
SUMATRA accounts for nearly 20% of global seismicity, in other words one in five large earthquakes take place in or around Sumatra.
All in all, I appreciate Arthur's attention to the subject and I am sure this is a good start to getting some serious and interesting developments in this forum.
With all due respect to Dr. Kanamori, Arthur, Troc and all,
Best regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone.
QUOTE
Why didn't (anybody) sciencetists warn people/governments in SUMATRA that a large earthquake "could" take place within six years (before 2004 12 26)?
Well one would think its OBVIOUS.
As you said:
SUMATRA accounts for nearly 20% of global seismicity, in other words one in five large earthquakes take place in or around Sumatra.
Which means one would EXPECT periodic large earthquakes if one lives in or around Sumatra.
Like the people who live on the West Coast of the US EXPECT periodic large earthquakes.
But if you say this quake might happen within SIX YEARS, its really not actionable data.
What is someone going to do, leave their home for 6 years till the threat is over?
Arthur
Arthur,
Research in science is for science's sake, which means we are still interested in possibilities even if it does not damage somebody's living room, so we do not need to take action... People do not need to leave their houses, people need to be educated to be prepared, pretentious ignorance can not educate.
Inminent is not the same as periodic.
Would appreciate to leave the subject here and concentrate in research and analisys. Good bye adoucette.
Research in science is for science's sake, which means we are still interested in possibilities even if it does not damage somebody's living room, so we do not need to take action... People do not need to leave their houses, people need to be educated to be prepared, pretentious ignorance can not educate.
Inminent is not the same as periodic.
Would appreciate to leave the subject here and concentrate in research and analisys. Good bye adoucette.
A new Seismicity Map has been added to the link:
http://sismomundo.blogspot.com/
It shows earthquakes magnitude > 7.0 from 2004 10 01 through to 2007 03 01, linked by date for your perusal, study and entertaiment.
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone!
http://sismomundo.blogspot.com/
It shows earthquakes magnitude > 7.0 from 2004 10 01 through to 2007 03 01, linked by date for your perusal, study and entertaiment.
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone!
THIS IS AN UPDATE OF FORECAST POSTED ON Feb 18 2007, 10:29 PM.
Using only the Rule of Ten I have come to the following results:
For the next 42 months (3.5 years)
Big Earthquake OVERDUE in AREA 10 (Himalayas to Anatolia)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 2 (Mexico and Caribbean)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 7 (Tonga and New Zealand)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 9 (Sumatra)
A Big Earthquake is of magnitude = or > 8.0 Mw
For the next 12 months (1 year)
Major Earthquake Inminent in AREA 3 (North America)
Major Earthquake Probable in AREA 5 (Japan)
A Major Earthquake is of magnitude = or > 7.0 Mw
Rule of Ten is, for the last 34 years, 0.94 (1), 14.15 (10), 119 (100)
Although, according to Adoucette it may all seem very obvious, it would be a GREAT HELP to set up working groups for each AREA in order to apply all other factors of risk and probably come up with a smaller hazardous sector. It is also obvious that at 14 each major earthquakes per year, there is bound to be more than the two forecasted, the news is that it is forecasted for North America which had a major earthquake in 1994, another in 1999, and another in 2005.
As today's developments in Sumatra show, some countries, areas or sectors are at the moment, ill prepared, even for a Strong Earthquake (magnitude > 6.0)
Best regards from the Nazca Plarte Subduction Zone
Using only the Rule of Ten I have come to the following results:
For the next 42 months (3.5 years)
Big Earthquake OVERDUE in AREA 10 (Himalayas to Anatolia)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 2 (Mexico and Caribbean)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 7 (Tonga and New Zealand)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 9 (Sumatra)
A Big Earthquake is of magnitude = or > 8.0 Mw
For the next 12 months (1 year)
Major Earthquake Inminent in AREA 3 (North America)
Major Earthquake Probable in AREA 5 (Japan)
A Major Earthquake is of magnitude = or > 7.0 Mw
Rule of Ten is, for the last 34 years, 0.94 (1), 14.15 (10), 119 (100)
Although, according to Adoucette it may all seem very obvious, it would be a GREAT HELP to set up working groups for each AREA in order to apply all other factors of risk and probably come up with a smaller hazardous sector. It is also obvious that at 14 each major earthquakes per year, there is bound to be more than the two forecasted, the news is that it is forecasted for North America which had a major earthquake in 1994, another in 1999, and another in 2005.
As today's developments in Sumatra show, some countries, areas or sectors are at the moment, ill prepared, even for a Strong Earthquake (magnitude > 6.0)
Best regards from the Nazca Plarte Subduction Zone
EARTHQUAKE FORECAST UPDATE
Following the forecast issued above, on Feb 18 2007, 10:29 PM, it may be added that the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone (South America) is now entering the Major Earthquake Threshold according to statistical analisys.
Areas most likely to be affected are:
Northern sector (+5 to -10 degrees Latitude), Lambayeque Peninsula and South of Panama Istmus.
Center North Sector (-10 to -25 degrees Latitude) , Coast Line south of Iquique
Center South Sector (-25 to -40 degrees Latitude) ,South of Latitude 34 degrees south to Concepción
Southern Sector (-40 to -55 degrees Latitude), Coast line south of Lebu and inner seas.
Regards from the NPSZ !
Following the forecast issued above, on Feb 18 2007, 10:29 PM, it may be added that the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone (South America) is now entering the Major Earthquake Threshold according to statistical analisys.
Areas most likely to be affected are:
Northern sector (+5 to -10 degrees Latitude), Lambayeque Peninsula and South of Panama Istmus.
Center North Sector (-10 to -25 degrees Latitude) , Coast Line south of Iquique
Center South Sector (-25 to -40 degrees Latitude) ,South of Latitude 34 degrees south to Concepción
Southern Sector (-40 to -55 degrees Latitude), Coast line south of Lebu and inner seas.
Regards from the NPSZ !
A Big Earthquake has been reported at Solomon Islands. The preliminary parameters for this earthquake are:
DATE / TIME (UTC) / LAT / LONG / DEPTH / MAGNITUDE
20070401 203956 -8.48 156.98 10 kM 8.1 Mw
WHICH PUTS IT RIGHT ON AREA 7 AS DEFINED IN THE GLOBAL MAP AT:
http://sismomundo.blogspot.com
AND AS FORECASTED ABOVE (Mar 7 2007, 02:20 AM)
"Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 7 (Tonga and New Zealand)"
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone !
DATE / TIME (UTC) / LAT / LONG / DEPTH / MAGNITUDE
20070401 203956 -8.48 156.98 10 kM 8.1 Mw
WHICH PUTS IT RIGHT ON AREA 7 AS DEFINED IN THE GLOBAL MAP AT:
http://sismomundo.blogspot.com
AND AS FORECASTED ABOVE (Mar 7 2007, 02:20 AM)
"Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 7 (Tonga and New Zealand)"
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone !
Hi rafael, and all ..
Good news!
As you know, the images from GOES 13 (coronal) have not been working for quite some time now. There is more to that story, but the bottom line is, that it was my primary tool for time and location analysis/predictions.
Now there is a new one (actually 2) that is very much better in the areas that I need. In fact, most of the "wish list" that I had created in order to get better results is present in the new STEREO systems.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html
click for larger image
Image above: Mounted onto the STEREO Spacecraft are four instrument packages: SECCHI, SWAVES, IMPACT, and PLASTIC Image Credit: APL
SEC has its' own category now!
SEC has its' own category now!
STEREO INSTRUMENT PACKAGES MOUNTED ON EACH OF THE TWO SPACECRAFT:
Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation (SECCHI) will have four instruments: an extreme ultraviolet imager, two white-light coronagraphs and a heliospheric imager. These instruments will study the 3-D evolution of CME's from birth at the Sun's surface through the corona and interplanetary medium to its eventual impact at Earth.
STEREO/WAVES (SWAVES) is an interplanetary radio burst tracker that will trace the generation and evolution of traveling radio disturbances from the Sun to the orbit of Earth.
In-situ Measurements of Particles and CME Transients (IMPACT) will sample the 3-D distribution and provide plasma characteristics of solar energetic particles and the local vector magnetic field.
PLAsma and SupraThermal Ion Composition (PLASTIC) will provide plasma characteristics of protons, alpha particles and heavy ions. This experiment will provide key diagnostic measurements of the form of mass and charge state composition of heavy ions and characterize the CME plasma from ambient coronal plasma.
If magnitude/energy can be figured out from any of these new sources, it would be fantastic. Even if not, I expect to get some more accuracy from the additional amounts of details available.
I think that rafael's historical profiling will show to be invaluable, in estimating magnitudes based on statistical expectations.
regards,
T.Roc
Good news!
As you know, the images from GOES 13 (coronal) have not been working for quite some time now. There is more to that story, but the bottom line is, that it was my primary tool for time and location analysis/predictions.
Now there is a new one (actually 2) that is very much better in the areas that I need. In fact, most of the "wish list" that I had created in order to get better results is present in the new STEREO systems.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html
click for larger image
Image above: Mounted onto the STEREO Spacecraft are four instrument packages: SECCHI, SWAVES, IMPACT, and PLASTIC Image Credit: APL
QUOTE
The objective of the STEREO mission is to significantly advance the understanding of the three-dimensional (3-D) structure and evolution of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and their interaction with the interplanetary medium and terrestrial magnetosphere using combined imaging, radio, and in situ measurements from two identical, stereoscopically-spaced spacecraft. The two-platform vantage will allow the reconstruction of CME genesis, 3-D structure, and propagation, particularly for Earth-directed CMEs. Using these observations, and a concerted modeling effort, STEREO will elucidate the role of ejected mass and magnetic flux and helicity in the physics of solar activity and dynamo action.
Major eruptive events on the sun, such as flares or CMEs, can have a profound influence on the terrestrial environment. CMEs can interact with Earth's magnetosphere to generate major geomagnetic storms and substorms, sometimes affecting communication and power grid systems and accelerating energetic particles that have been known to damage communications satellites and may harm astronauts working in space. Identifying and understanding the physical processes involved and forecasting large Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) events is a major goal of the STEREO mission.
Major eruptive events on the sun, such as flares or CMEs, can have a profound influence on the terrestrial environment. CMEs can interact with Earth's magnetosphere to generate major geomagnetic storms and substorms, sometimes affecting communication and power grid systems and accelerating energetic particles that have been known to damage communications satellites and may harm astronauts working in space. Identifying and understanding the physical processes involved and forecasting large Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) events is a major goal of the STEREO mission.
SEC has its' own category now!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The objective of the STEREO mission is to significantly advance the understanding of the three-dimensional (3-D) structure and evolution of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and their interaction with the interplanetary medium and terrestrial magnetosphere using combined imaging, radio, and in situ measurements from two identical, stereoscopically-spaced spacecraft. The two-platform vantage will allow the reconstruction of CME genesis, 3-D structure, and propagation, particularly for Earth-directed CMEs. Using these observations, and a concerted modeling effort, STEREO will elucidate the role of ejected mass and magnetic flux and helicity in the physics of solar activity and dynamo action. Major eruptive events on the sun, such as flares or CMEs, can have a profound influence on the terrestrial environment. CMEs can interact with Earth's magnetosphere to generate major geomagnetic storms and substorms, sometimes affecting communication and power grid systems and accelerating energetic particles that have been known to damage communications satellites and may harm astronauts working in space. Identifying and understanding the physical processes involved and forecasting large Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) events is a major goal of the STEREO mission. |
SEC has its' own category now!
STEREO INSTRUMENT PACKAGES MOUNTED ON EACH OF THE TWO SPACECRAFT:
Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation (SECCHI) will have four instruments: an extreme ultraviolet imager, two white-light coronagraphs and a heliospheric imager. These instruments will study the 3-D evolution of CME's from birth at the Sun's surface through the corona and interplanetary medium to its eventual impact at Earth.
STEREO/WAVES (SWAVES) is an interplanetary radio burst tracker that will trace the generation and evolution of traveling radio disturbances from the Sun to the orbit of Earth.
In-situ Measurements of Particles and CME Transients (IMPACT) will sample the 3-D distribution and provide plasma characteristics of solar energetic particles and the local vector magnetic field.
PLAsma and SupraThermal Ion Composition (PLASTIC) will provide plasma characteristics of protons, alpha particles and heavy ions. This experiment will provide key diagnostic measurements of the form of mass and charge state composition of heavy ions and characterize the CME plasma from ambient coronal plasma.
If magnitude/energy can be figured out from any of these new sources, it would be fantastic. Even if not, I expect to get some more accuracy from the additional amounts of details available.
I think that rafael's historical profiling will show to be invaluable, in estimating magnitudes based on statistical expectations.
regards,
T.Roc
The French have a satellite that measures electromagnetic (EM) emissions from seismic zones. These EM emissions occur prior to and during a seismic event.
http://smsc.cnes.fr/DEMETER/
Three Greek professors are using the VAN technique to measure earth currents which have been detected before and coincident with seismic events. The VAN technique uses earth connected electrodes with very large spacing (kilometers), thus the connecting wires also pick up geo-magnetic induced currents from sunspot events and other non-seismic sources. Other researchers are developing sensor groupings they hope will help diminish or make it easier to identify non-seismic generated currents.
http://smsc.cnes.fr/DEMETER/
Three Greek professors are using the VAN technique to measure earth currents which have been detected before and coincident with seismic events. The VAN technique uses earth connected electrodes with very large spacing (kilometers), thus the connecting wires also pick up geo-magnetic induced currents from sunspot events and other non-seismic sources. Other researchers are developing sensor groupings they hope will help diminish or make it easier to identify non-seismic generated currents.
What I have noticed in the last month that USGS reporting a high number of 5+ quakes all around the planet. My USGS mailbox has suddenly gone quiet in the last week.
Hi all,
FrankMak: Thanks for the link. I read about DEMETER a few years ago, but hadn't heard anything since. I have looked through all (?) of the links on their home page, and it seems that they are doing "closed door" research. I couldn't find any access to data; they show a set date for that in 2008. Do you have anything that maybe I missed? I would love to see what they are getting.
Chromodynamix: There is a "normal" flow to the rate of EQ's, that does sometimes get quiet. Rafael has some info on the "longest" quiet periods since he has been monitoring. The pattern suggests a "build up" can occur, so that heavier periods will follow the quiet ones.
ciao!
T.Roc
FrankMak: Thanks for the link. I read about DEMETER a few years ago, but hadn't heard anything since. I have looked through all (?) of the links on their home page, and it seems that they are doing "closed door" research. I couldn't find any access to data; they show a set date for that in 2008. Do you have anything that maybe I missed? I would love to see what they are getting.
Chromodynamix: There is a "normal" flow to the rate of EQ's, that does sometimes get quiet. Rafael has some info on the "longest" quiet periods since he has been monitoring. The pattern suggests a "build up" can occur, so that heavier periods will follow the quiet ones.
ciao!
T.Roc
Hi All, Troc,
With regards to Global seismicity and the proliferation of earthquakes magnitude > 5.0 in April, YES, there was an increase in seismicity at 5 and 6 magnitudes, the highest so far in the last two years. After that, the month of May showed a slow down to a minimum so far for the same period.
Will anyone show me how to copy an Xcel sheet into this forum?
i'LL TRY THIS:
http://googlemail.com/attachment?realattid...f7487a7b45a89ca
Regards from the NPSZ!
With regards to Global seismicity and the proliferation of earthquakes magnitude > 5.0 in April, YES, there was an increase in seismicity at 5 and 6 magnitudes, the highest so far in the last two years. After that, the month of May showed a slow down to a minimum so far for the same period.
Will anyone show me how to copy an Xcel sheet into this forum?
i'LL TRY THIS:
http://googlemail.com/attachment?realattid...f7487a7b45a89ca
Regards from the NPSZ!
Rafael,
I don't think that you can link a .XCL file; only GIF and PNG type files. And, you must have them already "hosted" on another web site. You can either just link the file (on its' web page), or paste columns onto your post (and that is a real pain).
There is some "goings on" in our Sun. I haven't had the time to fully follow it, but apparently, we are in an "anomalous" period of Solar activity. Maunder Minimum has been delayed? We are NOT in the normal cycle swings; the last pole shift did not occur on time. Everyone is waiting to see.. There have been very active Coronal formations in this last few months, and in the correct positions to "aim" this energy towards Earth.
ciao,
T.Roc
I don't think that you can link a .XCL file; only GIF and PNG type files. And, you must have them already "hosted" on another web site. You can either just link the file (on its' web page), or paste columns onto your post (and that is a real pain).
There is some "goings on" in our Sun. I haven't had the time to fully follow it, but apparently, we are in an "anomalous" period of Solar activity. Maunder Minimum has been delayed? We are NOT in the normal cycle swings; the last pole shift did not occur on time. Everyone is waiting to see.. There have been very active Coronal formations in this last few months, and in the correct positions to "aim" this energy towards Earth.
ciao,
T.Roc
A BIG EARTHQUAKE AND A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE SUMATRA REGION AS FORECASTED ON:
Mar 7 2007, 02:20 AM Report this post · Quote
THIS IS AN UPDATE OF FORECAST POSTED ON Feb 18 2007, 10:29 PM.
Using only the Rule of Ten I have come to the following results:
For the next 42 months (3.5 years)
Big Earthquake OVERDUE in AREA 10 (Himalayas to Anatolia)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 2 (Mexico and Caribbean)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 7 (Tonga and New Zealand)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 9 (Sumatra)
A Big Earthquake is of magnitude = or > 8.0 Mw
For the next 12 months (1 year)
Major Earthquake Inminent in AREA 3 (North America)
Major Earthquake Probable in AREA 5 (Japan)
A Major Earthquake is of magnitude = or > 7.0 Mw
Although it might have been deemed "obvious", and "of no use because of the time involved", both earthquakes come as no surprise to this author and confirm the proposed "RULE OF TEN" as a vallid method of forecasting big and major earthquakes due to take place, in rather large regions, but confined to the political and scientific control of local governments.
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone!
Mar 7 2007, 02:20 AM Report this post · Quote
THIS IS AN UPDATE OF FORECAST POSTED ON Feb 18 2007, 10:29 PM.
Using only the Rule of Ten I have come to the following results:
For the next 42 months (3.5 years)
Big Earthquake OVERDUE in AREA 10 (Himalayas to Anatolia)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 2 (Mexico and Caribbean)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 7 (Tonga and New Zealand)
Big Earthquake INMINENT in AREA 9 (Sumatra)
A Big Earthquake is of magnitude = or > 8.0 Mw
For the next 12 months (1 year)
Major Earthquake Inminent in AREA 3 (North America)
Major Earthquake Probable in AREA 5 (Japan)
A Major Earthquake is of magnitude = or > 7.0 Mw
Although it might have been deemed "obvious", and "of no use because of the time involved", both earthquakes come as no surprise to this author and confirm the proposed "RULE OF TEN" as a vallid method of forecasting big and major earthquakes due to take place, in rather large regions, but confined to the political and scientific control of local governments.
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone!
[QUOTE]In the same line of earthquakes warning, it is worthy of note the overall increase in number and magnitudes that events in the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone (NPSZ)have shown following the Sumatra Boxing Day Big Earthquake and its companion last week. As stated before, it is common for a Big Earthquake (> 8.0 Mgn)to be followed by one at least Major Eartquake (>7.0 mgn). In the Sumatra case, the 9.3 Mw was followed by an 8.7 Mw, which should be fit. What remains to be seen is the following 8.0, 7.8, etc.. which should take place in the area in the next months, up to two years at least.
The above paragraph, from the earthquakes-warning topic has now come to materialize in the Sumatra Subduction Zone, as the 9.00 magnitude was actually followed by 2 ea. > 8.0, 1 ea. > 7.8, 2 ea. > 7.5 and 1 ea. >7.0. all in less than three years since the megaquake.
PDE 2004 12 26 005853.45 3.30 95.98 30 9.00 MwHRV 9C M STS...M
PDE 2004 12 26 042129.81 6.91 92.96 39 7.50 Ms GS .. M .......
PDE 2005 03 28 160936.53 2.09 97.11 30 8.60 MwHRV 8C M 3TS....
PDE 2005 07 24 154206.21 7.92 92.19 16 7.50 Ms GS 5DFM .......
PDE-Q 2007 09 12 111026.62 -4.52 101.37 34 8.50 Ms GS .C M .T.....
PDE-Q 2007 09 12 234904.84 -2.54 100.93 35 7.90 MwGCMT 6C M .......
PDE-Q 2007 09 13 033528.38 -2.16 99.59 22 7.10 MeGS 3F M .......
THANKS TO GOOGLE, it is now possible to publish XCEL sheets, two of which are available at:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJr...9nxDoEJGZTx9deQ
and
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJr...9nxDC8GoUnG82ZQ
Please check and inform if the above can be accessed.
Regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone
The above paragraph, from the earthquakes-warning topic has now come to materialize in the Sumatra Subduction Zone, as the 9.00 magnitude was actually followed by 2 ea. > 8.0, 1 ea. > 7.8, 2 ea. > 7.5 and 1 ea. >7.0. all in less than three years since the megaquake.
PDE 2004 12 26 005853.45 3.30 95.98 30 9.00 MwHRV 9C M STS...M
PDE 2004 12 26 042129.81 6.91 92.96 39 7.50 Ms GS .. M .......
PDE 2005 03 28 160936.53 2.09 97.11 30 8.60 MwHRV 8C M 3TS....
PDE 2005 07 24 154206.21 7.92 92.19 16 7.50 Ms GS 5DFM .......
PDE-Q 2007 09 12 111026.62 -4.52 101.37 34 8.50 Ms GS .C M .T.....
PDE-Q 2007 09 12 234904.84 -2.54 100.93 35 7.90 MwGCMT 6C M .......
PDE-Q 2007 09 13 033528.38 -2.16 99.59 22 7.10 MeGS 3F M .......
THANKS TO GOOGLE, it is now possible to publish XCEL sheets, two of which are available at:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJr...9nxDoEJGZTx9deQ
and
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJr...9nxDC8GoUnG82ZQ
Please check and inform if the above can be accessed.
Regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone
Hola Rafael,
Very good work. This new format (internet) is recording your efforts in real-time, and in front of your "cyber-peers". People have brought up valid concerns as to your approach, and I think that the results of the last few months have put them largely to rest.
I have not had the time to do any work to support "the cause" for many months, but will pick up where I left off, soon. I mentioned before that the new satellite capabilities are much better than what was available before (and then lost). Also, DEMETER is starting to post publications resulting from their work, and there is promising data.
Your links both work well. That looks to be a very promising service that Google has made. I am going to definitely look into that some more; thanks for the tip.
regards (from Juan de Fuca)
T.Roc
Very good work. This new format (internet) is recording your efforts in real-time, and in front of your "cyber-peers". People have brought up valid concerns as to your approach, and I think that the results of the last few months have put them largely to rest.
I have not had the time to do any work to support "the cause" for many months, but will pick up where I left off, soon. I mentioned before that the new satellite capabilities are much better than what was available before (and then lost). Also, DEMETER is starting to post publications resulting from their work, and there is promising data.
Your links both work well. That looks to be a very promising service that Google has made. I am going to definitely look into that some more; thanks for the tip.
regards (from Juan de Fuca)
T.Roc
We know that psisio-electric stress is evident just prior to most earthquakes. In theory, this can be scanned from orbit. Ground stress can be interpreted in many ways. Very subtle changes in air pressure can be detected from satellites in orbit. It should not be too difficult to use this information to provide at least a few minutes warning to any where on the earth. I very much doubt we will be able to prevent earthquakes in my lifetime, ( I'm 49), but we may be able to predict them to some point. That alone could save many lives.
DATA FOR THE FIRST 10 MONTHS OF 2007 SHOWS THIS TO BE A HIGH SEISMICITY YEAR
The data spreadsheet has been updated at:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJr...9nxDgQggVQRV6MA
It shows this year to be a high seismicity year only surpassed by 2004 with its Sumatra Mega earthquake.
Regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone!
The data spreadsheet has been updated at:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJr...9nxDgQggVQRV6MA
It shows this year to be a high seismicity year only surpassed by 2004 with its Sumatra Mega earthquake.
Regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone!
The December 26, 2004 Aceh Quake was preceded by a massive quake east of Australia about two days earlier. The tsunami caused the Earth to wobble or, ring like a bell, and I wonder if anybody felt the low frequency wobble.
A Major Earthquake, magnitude 7.70 Mw has taken place near the city of Tocopilla in Northern Chile. A seismicity Map can be accessed at:
http://sismoarica.blogspot.com/
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone !
http://sismoarica.blogspot.com/
Much regards from the Nazca Plate Subduction Zone !
Only a future statistical study of all of the statistical studies making predictions can validate which methods used are best. I will guess we are certainly going to get more earthquakes.
Latest Earthquakes
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
Latest Earthquakes
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
Augh.
It's pretty much given that in any period longer then 12 months there's going to be an earthquake greater then about 7, as the Alpine fault (in New Zealand), and it's southern extension experience.
I also notice that you've left an earthquake out of your forecasts (one that I know i've, and I'd wager there's more then that).
I suppose I'll be nice and tell you that you've overlooked something in Area 9.
It's pretty much given that in any period longer then 12 months there's going to be an earthquake greater then about 7, as the Alpine fault (in New Zealand), and it's southern extension experience.
I also notice that you've left an earthquake out of your forecasts (one that I know i've, and I'd wager there's more then that).
I suppose I'll be nice and tell you that you've overlooked something in Area 9.
Hi Trippy, Rafael, all..
OK, let me go out on the limb; it's less crowded there.
"observe, predict, confirm"
I've observed a pattern of connection between EQs in N.Chile/S.Peru, to N.California/S.Oregon...
No further basis needed..
I predict an EQ of magnitude ~6.0 to 6.9 to happen in juan de fuca within 48 hrs.
(offshore)
This is not saying that every time there is an EQ in one of these areas, that there will be one in the other. But, statistically, the odds are in my favor that it is right. However, this is not "Science" yet, because it's not repeatable (in other areas); but it is a trend. If, in many years from now, several other people add to this pattern, and find several other reasons for it, and can apply it to other "connected" faults, then we have "Science".
Note the importance of the initial work, to the "final answer". I'm sure that you are aware of other examples; if not, I'd be happy to provide some.
It's important to note, that (among others), we are using bodies of data, like the USGS, to attempt the unprecedented action of predicting EQs, for the purpose of saving lives, and energy/money. The USGS is the "authoritative figure" here; yet you will NOT find any predictions being made by them. When some "maverick" geologist states that there will be a great EQ in the LA basin in the next 20 years, it makes HEADLINES. This is what you need to compare Rafael's' work to: improving the time-frame by orders of magnitude.
You are right, and I agree (as does he, probably) that "of course" one is going to happen in the areas that he lists... that's the point. No one else is saying that, though. And no, saying "the people should know" doesn't work: Sumatra and the tsunami are proof. Needless, and great loss of life happened. The "authorities" didn't make the right phone calls, and we all sat and watched that thing roll in (some of us literally), with hours notice.
USGS-
OK, let me go out on the limb; it's less crowded there.
"observe, predict, confirm"
I've observed a pattern of connection between EQs in N.Chile/S.Peru, to N.California/S.Oregon...
No further basis needed..
I predict an EQ of magnitude ~6.0 to 6.9 to happen in juan de fuca within 48 hrs.
(offshore)
This is not saying that every time there is an EQ in one of these areas, that there will be one in the other. But, statistically, the odds are in my favor that it is right. However, this is not "Science" yet, because it's not repeatable (in other areas); but it is a trend. If, in many years from now, several other people add to this pattern, and find several other reasons for it, and can apply it to other "connected" faults, then we have "Science".
Note the importance of the initial work, to the "final answer". I'm sure that you are aware of other examples; if not, I'd be happy to provide some.
It's important to note, that (among others), we are using bodies of data, like the USGS, to attempt the unprecedented action of predicting EQs, for the purpose of saving lives, and energy/money. The USGS is the "authoritative figure" here; yet you will NOT find any predictions being made by them. When some "maverick" geologist states that there will be a great EQ in the LA basin in the next 20 years, it makes HEADLINES. This is what you need to compare Rafael's' work to: improving the time-frame by orders of magnitude.
QUOTE
The USGS serves the nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.
(no predicting)You are right, and I agree (as does he, probably) that "of course" one is going to happen in the areas that he lists... that's the point. No one else is saying that, though. And no, saying "the people should know" doesn't work: Sumatra and the tsunami are proof. Needless, and great loss of life happened. The "authorities" didn't make the right phone calls, and we all sat and watched that thing roll in (some of us literally), with hours notice.
USGS-
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The USGS serves the nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. |
(no predicting)
You are right, and I agree (as does he, probably) that "of course" one is going to happen in the areas that he lists... that's the point. No one else is saying that, though. And no, saying "the people should know" doesn't work: Sumatra and the tsunami are proof. Needless, and great loss of life happened. The "authorities" didn't make the right phone calls, and we all sat and watched that thing roll in (some of us literally), with hours notice.
USGS-The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Experiment
September 28, 2004—M 6.0 earthquake captured
Hypothesis
Moderate-size earthquakes of about magnitude 6 have occurred on the Parkfield section of the San Andreas fault at fairly regular intervals - in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966. The first, in 1857, was a foreshock to the great Fort Tejon earthquake which ruptured the fault from Parkfield to the southeast for over 180 miles. Available data suggest that all six moderate-sized Parkfield earthquakes may have been "characteristic" in the sense that they all ruptured the same area on the fault. If such characteristic ruptures occur regularly, then the next quake would have been due before 1993.
Does this method look familiar? It was 11 years off, and considered "successful".
The problem is that it was "micro"; the larger trends are macro, and require looking at the inter-related trends of ALL of the faults (and the triggers). Again, outside of the "voting district".
The point I'm trying to make, is that the info, in general, needs to be disseminated much better than the governments will probably do anytime soon; at least until someone can predict them well, and by magnitude. Something like seeing fire, and yelling FIRE!. Note that it is typically against the law to do so when not true. No laws are being broken here; we are trying to refine methods, in this open format, where more people can contribute.
Rafael is not making outright, and imminent predictions. He is building a body of data, that can be used by others. There is much more than yelling "fire" to this: building codes, emergency preparedness, etc. The mayors and governors are NOT going to change things as long as their appointed officials are telling them "something" will probably happen in the next 20 to 50 years (far beyond their elected terms).
Anyhow, it's nice to have someone from NZ participating.
regards,
T.Roc
You are right, and I agree (as does he, probably) that "of course" one is going to happen in the areas that he lists... that's the point. No one else is saying that, though. And no, saying "the people should know" doesn't work: Sumatra and the tsunami are proof. Needless, and great loss of life happened. The "authorities" didn't make the right phone calls, and we all sat and watched that thing roll in (some of us literally), with hours notice.
USGS-The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Experiment
September 28, 2004—M 6.0 earthquake captured
Hypothesis
Moderate-size earthquakes of about magnitude 6 have occurred on the Parkfield section of the San Andreas fault at fairly regular intervals - in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966. The first, in 1857, was a foreshock to the great Fort Tejon earthquake which ruptured the fault from Parkfield to the southeast for over 180 miles. Available data suggest that all six moderate-sized Parkfield earthquakes may have been "characteristic" in the sense that they all ruptured the same area on the fault. If such characteristic ruptures occur regularly, then the next quake would have been due before 1993.
Does this method look familiar? It was 11 years off, and considered "successful".
The problem is that it was "micro"; the larger trends are macro, and require looking at the inter-related trends of ALL of the faults (and the triggers). Again, outside of the "voting district".
QUOTE
USGS Re-establishes the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council
Released: 5/4/2006 6:27:20 AM
As part of the multi-agency National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), the USGS has the lead federal responsibility to provide notification of earthquakes in order to enhance public safety and to reduce losses through effective forecasts based on the best possible scientific information.
(forecast, like the weather) Released: 5/4/2006 6:27:20 AM
As part of the multi-agency National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), the USGS has the lead federal responsibility to provide notification of earthquakes in order to enhance public safety and to reduce losses through effective forecasts based on the best possible scientific information.
The point I'm trying to make, is that the info, in general, needs to be disseminated much better than the governments will probably do anytime soon; at least until someone can predict them well, and by magnitude. Something like seeing fire, and yelling FIRE!. Note that it is typically against the law to do so when not true. No laws are being broken here; we are trying to refine methods, in this open format, where more people can contribute.
Rafael is not making outright, and imminent predictions. He is building a body of data, that can be used by others. There is much more than yelling "fire" to this: building codes, emergency preparedness, etc. The mayors and governors are NOT going to change things as long as their appointed officials are telling them "something" will probably happen in the next 20 to 50 years (far beyond their elected terms).
Anyhow, it's nice to have someone from NZ participating.
regards,
T.Roc
The thing is, the USGS already use a statistical approach, but they use a statistical approach combined with stress analysis. Rupturing one fault leads to a local stress release, but it causes stress to build up in other areas, this principle is already well understood.
The other problem is this. If you have a system of prediction that is 95% accurate, do you still make the forecasts? Sure, 95% accuracy is great in many respects, howeve, there's still a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong, and in this case, the consequences of being wrong can be as bad as the consequences of doing nothing.
There's the financial burden, but there's also other things to consider, there will be rioting, there will be looting, there will be lives lost in the evacuation procedure. Only to find out that some scientest got it wrong. That happens, once, maybe twice in a row, and people then start ignoring the warnings.
Such is the level of the burden carried by the earthquake forecasters.
And as far as the Bandah Aceh earthquake, and associated Tsunami go, AFAIK the Tsunami warning center didn't have enough information to predict a Tsunami until it was too late for many places.
Yes, a big earthquake occured, but there was unceartainty over just how big it was (and I honestly do not believe that anyone could have correctly anticipated the scale of the earth quake) and they didn't know which direction the slip was (lateral slips don't tend to produce earthquakes). Not to mention the fact that there were two Tsunamis produced on that day.
The other problem is this. If you have a system of prediction that is 95% accurate, do you still make the forecasts? Sure, 95% accuracy is great in many respects, howeve, there's still a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong, and in this case, the consequences of being wrong can be as bad as the consequences of doing nothing.
There's the financial burden, but there's also other things to consider, there will be rioting, there will be looting, there will be lives lost in the evacuation procedure. Only to find out that some scientest got it wrong. That happens, once, maybe twice in a row, and people then start ignoring the warnings.
Such is the level of the burden carried by the earthquake forecasters.
And as far as the Bandah Aceh earthquake, and associated Tsunami go, AFAIK the Tsunami warning center didn't have enough information to predict a Tsunami until it was too late for many places.
Yes, a big earthquake occured, but there was unceartainty over just how big it was (and I honestly do not believe that anyone could have correctly anticipated the scale of the earth quake) and they didn't know which direction the slip was (lateral slips don't tend to produce earthquakes). Not to mention the fact that there were two Tsunamis produced on that day.
Troc, Trippy, all,
I'll also make a quick draw from the hip.
"Only a future statistical study of all of the statistical studies making predictions can validate which methods used are best. I will guess we are certainly going to get more earthquakes."
Question: who is going to study/validate?
Answer: those who are not forecasting but "belong", those who do not recoignize the existance of statistical (or other) methods but cling to a "chaos" theory or those who do not see, hear or speak?
Question: who is going to study/validate?
Answer: those who are not forecasting but "belong", those who do not recoignize the existance of statistical (or other) methods but cling to a "chaos" theory or those who do not see, hear or speak?
The thing is, the USGS already use a statistical approach, but they use a statistical approach combined with stress analysis. Rupturing one fault leads to a local stress release, but it causes stress to build up in other areas, this principle is already well understood.
The other problem is this. If you have a system of prediction that is 95% accurate, do you still make the forecasts? Sure, 95% accuracy is great in many respects, howeve, there's still a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong, and in this case, the consequences of being wrong can be as bad as the consequences of doing nothing.
There's the financial burden, but there's also other things to consider, there will be rioting, there will be looting, there will be lives lost in the evacuation procedure. Only to find out that some scientest got it wrong. That happens, once, maybe twice in a row, and people then start ignoring the warnings.
Such is the level of the burden carried by the earthquake forecasters.
A statistical approach with zero stress analysis AND intense seismicity map plotting /observing is being used with some 95% result accuracy. Note that in my global forecasting only a limited amount of effort is being applied, the bulk being used in NPSZ (Nazca Plate Subduction Zone) analysis.
Some encouraging results so far are:
1.- Major and Big earthquakes in the NPSZ rupture SOUTHWARDS.(2001 06 23, 2005 06 13, 2007 08 15, 2007 11 14)
2.- First to react locations on Major and Big earthquakes mark posible locations of future ruptures.(2005 06 23, 2005 06 13)
3.- Major and Big earthquakes have taken place at locations, as forecasted with a BIG CAPITAL "H" (for hazard), marked in the seismicity maps because of "lack of seismicity" and Extra Deep Earthquake taking place... (my marks in my maps, that satisfies me and ecourages me very very much...)
4.- TOCOPILLA or Sector Centro Sur, was forecasted six years ago, then confirmed again two years ago, then reconfirmed again two months ago. Did authorities (government) act on the hinch? NO. Did the nation lost a lot of capital ?(1500 houses to the ground) NO, Is the ONEMI (Emergency Agency Interior Gov.)being overrun by the situation ? YES. So, reasons quoted above for not taking risk in forecasting are invalid. It is not a case of mass evacuations, it is a case of mass education and government pre-emptive actions.
Neither is the case of the usual "you can not predict an earthquakes ¿When? to the hour, minute and second, or ¿Where? the the hundreth of a degree, but is the case of if there is a reasonable posibility of it occurring in that province, lets get prepared, warned and informed.
An observable pattern exists, and repeats itself around the Arica Bend: A major or Big earthquake at one of its "angle sides" (northern or southern legs) somehow "causes" a mirror earthquake at the other "side/leg" i.e. !995 (Antofagasta), 1996 Nazca. 2001 Southern Peru, 2005 Northern Chile. 2007 Pisco Peru, 2007 Tocopilla Chile, etc.
Another observable pattern is: Extra deep earthquakes "make room" for the (subducting) plate to move downwards, in due time, the contacting limit or the intermediate zone releases and moves with a corresponding earthquake. 2001, 2005, 2007.
About Tsunamis. Lots of worries about it, lots of fear, lots of questions. The FACT is that many many Major and Big earthquakes take place every year WITHOUT a tsunami. The occurrance of a tsunami is only a (remote) possibility of a major or big earthquake taking place at the wrong place. The issuance of an alert is most probably going to happen AFTER it hits the shores. (During a major or big earthquake, electric power is lost instantly as has been observed here in northern Chile all the times a strong, major or big earthquake has taken place) So why not concentrate in method, policy, equipment and people preparation for this possibility? We here everybody talking about it AFTER, not BEFORE a tsunami happens.
As the night moves on here in Chile, the sun rises in New Zealand, lets contribute to the awakening of the authorities for the benefit of the people, Much regards from the NPSZ!
http://sismofuturo.blogspot.com/
http://sismoarica.blogspot.com/
http://rafaelperalta.blogspot.com/
I'll also make a quick draw from the hip.
QUOTE
"Only a future statistical study of all of the statistical studies making predictions can validate which methods used are best. I will guess we are certainly going to get more earthquakes."
Question: who is going to study/validate?
Answer: those who are not forecasting but "belong", those who do not recoignize the existance of statistical (or other) methods but cling to a "chaos" theory or those who do not see, hear or speak?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Only a future statistical study of all of the statistical studies making predictions can validate which methods used are best. I will guess we are certainly going to get more earthquakes." |
Question: who is going to study/validate?
Answer: those who are not forecasting but "belong", those who do not recoignize the existance of statistical (or other) methods but cling to a "chaos" theory or those who do not see, hear or speak?
The thing is, the USGS already use a statistical approach, but they use a statistical approach combined with stress analysis. Rupturing one fault leads to a local stress release, but it causes stress to build up in other areas, this principle is already well understood.
The other problem is this. If you have a system of prediction that is 95% accurate, do you still make the forecasts? Sure, 95% accuracy is great in many respects, howeve, there's still a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong, and in this case, the consequences of being wrong can be as bad as the consequences of doing nothing.
There's the financial burden, but there's also other things to consider, there will be rioting, there will be looting, there will be lives lost in the evacuation procedure. Only to find out that some scientest got it wrong. That happens, once, maybe twice in a row, and people then start ignoring the warnings.
Such is the level of the burden carried by the earthquake forecasters.
A statistical approach with zero stress analysis AND intense seismicity map plotting /observing is being used with some 95% result accuracy. Note that in my global forecasting only a limited amount of effort is being applied, the bulk being used in NPSZ (Nazca Plate Subduction Zone) analysis.
Some encouraging results so far are:
1.- Major and Big earthquakes in the NPSZ rupture SOUTHWARDS.(2001 06 23, 2005 06 13, 2007 08 15, 2007 11 14)
2.- First to react locations on Major and Big earthquakes mark posible locations of future ruptures.(2005 06 23, 2005 06 13)
3.- Major and Big earthquakes have taken place at locations, as forecasted with a BIG CAPITAL "H" (for hazard), marked in the seismicity maps because of "lack of seismicity" and Extra Deep Earthquake taking place... (my marks in my maps, that satisfies me and ecourages me very very much...)
4.- TOCOPILLA or Sector Centro Sur, was forecasted six years ago, then confirmed again two years ago, then reconfirmed again two months ago. Did authorities (government) act on the hinch? NO. Did the nation lost a lot of capital ?(1500 houses to the ground) NO, Is the ONEMI (Emergency Agency Interior Gov.)being overrun by the situation ? YES. So, reasons quoted above for not taking risk in forecasting are invalid. It is not a case of mass evacuations, it is a case of mass education and government pre-emptive actions.
Neither is the case of the usual "you can not predict an earthquakes ¿When? to the hour, minute and second, or ¿Where? the the hundreth of a degree, but is the case of if there is a reasonable posibility of it occurring in that province, lets get prepared, warned and informed.
QUOTE
"observe, predict, confirm"
I've observed a pattern of connection between EQs in N.Chile/S.Peru, to N.California/S.Oregon...
No further basis needed..
I predict an EQ of magnitude ~6.0 to 6.9 to happen in juan de fuca within 48 hrs.
(offshore)
This is not saying that every time there is an EQ in one of these areas, that there will be one in the other. But, statistically, the odds are in my favor that it is right. However, this is not "Science" yet, because it's not repeatable (in other areas); but it is a trend. If, in many years from now, several other people add to this pattern, and find several other reasons for it, and can apply it to other "connected" faults, then we have "Science".
I've observed a pattern of connection between EQs in N.Chile/S.Peru, to N.California/S.Oregon...
No further basis needed..
I predict an EQ of magnitude ~6.0 to 6.9 to happen in juan de fuca within 48 hrs.
(offshore)
This is not saying that every time there is an EQ in one of these areas, that there will be one in the other. But, statistically, the odds are in my favor that it is right. However, this is not "Science" yet, because it's not repeatable (in other areas); but it is a trend. If, in many years from now, several other people add to this pattern, and find several other reasons for it, and can apply it to other "connected" faults, then we have "Science".
An observable pattern exists, and repeats itself around the Arica Bend: A major or Big earthquake at one of its "angle sides" (northern or southern legs) somehow "causes" a mirror earthquake at the other "side/leg" i.e. !995 (Antofagasta), 1996 Nazca. 2001 Southern Peru, 2005 Northern Chile. 2007 Pisco Peru, 2007 Tocopilla Chile, etc.
Another observable pattern is: Extra deep earthquakes "make room" for the (subducting) plate to move downwards, in due time, the contacting limit or the intermediate zone releases and moves with a corresponding earthquake. 2001, 2005, 2007.
About Tsunamis. Lots of worries about it, lots of fear, lots of questions. The FACT is that many many Major and Big earthquakes take place every year WITHOUT a tsunami. The occurrance of a tsunami is only a (remote) possibility of a major or big earthquake taking place at the wrong place. The issuance of an alert is most probably going to happen AFTER it hits the shores. (During a major or big earthquake, electric power is lost instantly as has been observed here in northern Chile all the times a strong, major or big earthquake has taken place) So why not concentrate in method, policy, equipment and people preparation for this possibility? We here everybody talking about it AFTER, not BEFORE a tsunami happens.
As the night moves on here in Chile, the sun rises in New Zealand, lets contribute to the awakening of the authorities for the benefit of the people, Much regards from the NPSZ!
http://sismofuturo.blogspot.com/
http://sismoarica.blogspot.com/
http://rafaelperalta.blogspot.com/
Hi all,
TRoc Posted on Nov 17 2007, 05:58 AM
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_jxb6_l.html
MAP 5.7 2007/11/19 20:32:48 43.541 -127.507 10.0 OFF COAST OREGON
There is the pattern; a little less than I thought, but a good prediction nonetheless.
Trippy Posted on Nov 17 2007, 06:51 PM
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_jxb6_l.html
MAP 5.7 2007/11/19 20:32:48 43.541 -127.507 10.0 OFF COAST OREGON
There is the pattern; a little less than I thought, but a good prediction nonetheless.
Trippy Posted on Nov 17 2007, 06:51 PM
If you have a system of prediction that is 95% accurate, do you still make the forecasts?
Good point.
This is where a Forum like this comes in. No one is quoting me in the news, so I am not technically yelling "fire".
I disagree with this, however:
Good point.
This is where a Forum like this comes in. No one is quoting me in the news, so I am not technically yelling "fire".
I disagree with this, however: ..there will be rioting, there will be looting, there will be lives lost in the evacuation procedure..
This would be closer to a Tornado warning than a Hurricane: a full evacuation is not necessary. Just having everyone prepared with a few gallons of water alone would be a great step. The initial focus (after EQ) needs to be on rescue, not getting water.
You are right about people ignoring it if they are wrong a few times.
The "100%" accurate prediction theory is not just going to roll off the showroom floor, like a new car. It needs to be developed. Because of the reason that you listed, and Rafael and I mentioned, the "authorities" will not be doing anything more than they are now (not predicting) anytime soon.
I would say that we will be getting more large quakes (6.0+) over the next few days, predominantly in the S. hemisphere. Activity in the North should be lower in magnitude, following the "mirroring" that RP mentioned. I am saying this based on Solar activity (not a method you will find in any Geology book, or govt website).
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc Posted on Nov 17 2007, 05:58 AM
QUOTE
I predict an EQ of magnitude ~6.0 to 6.9 to happen in juan de fuca within 48 hrs.
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_jxb6_l.html
MAP 5.7 2007/11/19 20:32:48 43.541 -127.507 10.0 OFF COAST OREGON
There is the pattern; a little less than I thought, but a good prediction nonetheless.
Trippy Posted on Nov 17 2007, 06:51 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I predict an EQ of magnitude ~6.0 to 6.9 to happen in juan de fuca within 48 hrs. |
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_jxb6_l.html
MAP 5.7 2007/11/19 20:32:48 43.541 -127.507 10.0 OFF COAST OREGON
There is the pattern; a little less than I thought, but a good prediction nonetheless.
Trippy Posted on Nov 17 2007, 06:51 PM
If you have a system of prediction that is 95% accurate, do you still make the forecasts?
QUOTE
Such is the level of the burden carried by the earthquake forecasters.
Good point.
This is where a Forum like this comes in. No one is quoting me in the news, so I am not technically yelling "fire".
I disagree with this, however:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Such is the level of the burden carried by the earthquake forecasters. |
Good point.
This is where a Forum like this comes in. No one is quoting me in the news, so I am not technically yelling "fire".
I disagree with this, however: ..there will be rioting, there will be looting, there will be lives lost in the evacuation procedure..
This would be closer to a Tornado warning than a Hurricane: a full evacuation is not necessary. Just having everyone prepared with a few gallons of water alone would be a great step. The initial focus (after EQ) needs to be on rescue, not getting water.
You are right about people ignoring it if they are wrong a few times.
The "100%" accurate prediction theory is not just going to roll off the showroom floor, like a new car. It needs to be developed. Because of the reason that you listed, and Rafael and I mentioned, the "authorities" will not be doing anything more than they are now (not predicting) anytime soon.
I would say that we will be getting more large quakes (6.0+) over the next few days, predominantly in the S. hemisphere. Activity in the North should be lower in magnitude, following the "mirroring" that RP mentioned. I am saying this based on Solar activity (not a method you will find in any Geology book, or govt website).
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc:
Interesting. You were only about 4.5 degrees latitude off... not bad at all.
You said you use the solar activity as a cue. Is this based upon the Planetary-K Index, IMF y-component orientation, or something else?
If you would like your method to remain secret, I understand.
Interesting. You were only about 4.5 degrees latitude off... not bad at all.
You said you use the solar activity as a cue. Is this based upon the Planetary-K Index, IMF y-component orientation, or something else?
If you would like your method to remain secret, I understand.
Hi all,
am_Unition:
No, that last prediction was based solely on a more "global" view on interconnectedness of plates; some having distinct patterns of chain reactions.
This is from today's news: 2002 Alaskan quake left 7 areas of California stirred but not shaken
As a side note:
As a side note:
The tremors began within an hour of the Denali earthquake, and their signal was observed as high-frequency pulses among the lower-frequency signals from the main earthquake.
..
The scientists examined all available recordings of Denali earthquake waves from seismic stations throughout California and were able to identify high-frequency waves that pulsed with passing surface waves. The researchers determined the high-frequency waves were not part of the Denali quake itself, nor were they caused by any smaller nearby earthquakes.
This should open doors to linking tinnitus and quakes.
Also of interest in today's news: Rising tides intensify non-volcanic tremor in Earth's crust
Also of interest in today's news: Rising tides intensify non-volcanic tremor in Earth's crust
The clearest tidal pulse at 12.4 hours coincided with a peak in lunar forcing, while the pulse at 24 to 25 hours was linked to peaks in both lunar and solar influences.
..
The rising tide appeared to increase the tremor by a factor of 30 percent, though the Earth distortion still was so small that it was undetectable without instruments, said Vidale, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences and director of the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network.
"We expected that the added water of a rising tide would clamp down on the tremor, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. It's fair to say that we don't understand it," Vidale said.
Here are links to 2 other threads of RP's, that explain more of the Solar "trigger" than I am postulating:
IS EARTHQUAKES PREDICTION ALIVE?
earthquakes warning
I am not interested in keeping this "secret"; lives are more important than any possible personal benefits (which are few anyway).
regards,
T.Roc
am_Unition:
No, that last prediction was based solely on a more "global" view on interconnectedness of plates; some having distinct patterns of chain reactions.
This is from today's news: 2002 Alaskan quake left 7 areas of California stirred but not shaken
QUOTE
New research has found evidence of tremors along non-subduction zone faults in seven California locations. The tremors immediately followed the magnitude 7.8 Denali earthquake in Alaska on Nov. 3, 2002 and are linked to that quake even though they are as much as 2,400 miles from its epicenter.
As a side note:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| New research has found evidence of tremors along non-subduction zone faults in seven California locations. The tremors immediately followed the magnitude 7.8 Denali earthquake in Alaska on Nov. 3, 2002 and are linked to that quake even though they are as much as 2,400 miles from its epicenter. |
As a side note:
The tremors began within an hour of the Denali earthquake, and their signal was observed as high-frequency pulses among the lower-frequency signals from the main earthquake.
..
The scientists examined all available recordings of Denali earthquake waves from seismic stations throughout California and were able to identify high-frequency waves that pulsed with passing surface waves. The researchers determined the high-frequency waves were not part of the Denali quake itself, nor were they caused by any smaller nearby earthquakes.
This should open doors to linking tinnitus and quakes.
QUOTE
"Such research has made it worth it to put in all the recording equipment that we have measuring seismic events. You never know what you are going to learn."
Also of interest in today's news: Rising tides intensify non-volcanic tremor in Earth's crust
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Such research has made it worth it to put in all the recording equipment that we have measuring seismic events. You never know what you are going to learn." |
Also of interest in today's news: Rising tides intensify non-volcanic tremor in Earth's crust
The clearest tidal pulse at 12.4 hours coincided with a peak in lunar forcing, while the pulse at 24 to 25 hours was linked to peaks in both lunar and solar influences.
..
The rising tide appeared to increase the tremor by a factor of 30 percent, though the Earth distortion still was so small that it was undetectable without instruments, said Vidale, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences and director of the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network.
"We expected that the added water of a rising tide would clamp down on the tremor, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. It's fair to say that we don't understand it," Vidale said.
Here are links to 2 other threads of RP's, that explain more of the Solar "trigger" than I am postulating:
IS EARTHQUAKES PREDICTION ALIVE?
earthquakes warning
I am not interested in keeping this "secret"; lives are more important than any possible personal benefits (which are few anyway).
regards,
T.Roc
Hi all,
Hoping for an update from Rafael..
We had a very large EQ recently--
7.8 2007/12/09 07:28:21 -25.872 -177.517 149.2 SOUTH OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
and I wanted to add my "2 cents".
The Solar conditions are very similar to 12/2004 right now.
I can't say "prediction", but rather, just a "hunch".
3 days prior to the Band Aceh 9.1, there was - North of Macquarie Island - M 8.1 ,
not too far from the quake mentioned above.
So, maybe we will see this pattern repeated, in the next 24 hrs. If so, with less magnitude, and further south than the 12/26/04 quake.
ciao,
T.Roc
Hoping for an update from Rafael..
We had a very large EQ recently--
7.8 2007/12/09 07:28:21 -25.872 -177.517 149.2 SOUTH OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
and I wanted to add my "2 cents".
The Solar conditions are very similar to 12/2004 right now.
I can't say "prediction", but rather, just a "hunch".
3 days prior to the Band Aceh 9.1, there was - North of Macquarie Island - M 8.1 ,
not too far from the quake mentioned above.
So, maybe we will see this pattern repeated, in the next 24 hrs. If so, with less magnitude, and further south than the 12/26/04 quake.
ciao,
T.Roc
Interesting hunch. The Macquarie Island quake in 2004 was nearly 30 degrees further south than the recent one near the Fiji Islands.
You were pretty right on with that last prediction though.
I'll be trolling the USGS site in the meantime
You were pretty right on with that last prediction though.
I'll be trolling the USGS site in the meantime
Hi Troc,
I have stumbled upon a new local website that will help refine my "research"... I will let you know if it increases my accuracy rate.
Good luck, you seem to be doing quite well recently.
I have stumbled upon a new local website that will help refine my "research"... I will let you know if it increases my accuracy rate.
Good luck, you seem to be doing quite well recently.
Interesting article on ULFs
http://www.physorg.com/news116685860.html
I know in California they monitor ULFs, I wonder how many other regions monitor these?
http://www.physorg.com/news116685860.html
I know in California they monitor ULFs, I wonder how many other regions monitor these?
Hi all,
If it was a woman who coined the phrase "size doesn't matter", she was probably a therapist, with mainly sexually dysfunctional male clients.
I get a "raspberry" for magnitude..
Size does matter.
However, this does not mean that she was incorrect in stating "location and timing are equally important".
"..maybe we will see this pattern repeated, in the next 24 hrs. If so, with less magnitude, and further south.."
7.8 2007/12/09 07:28:21 -25.872 -177.517
&
5.0 2007/12/12 03:43:58 -4.450 -100.850
~68 hr separation
and
8.1 2004/12/23 14:59:03 -50.145 -160.365
&
9.1 2004/12/26 00:58:53 -3.316 -95.854
~58 hr separation
And, so goes the complexity of "predictions". It may be reasonable to conclude, that the extra time and distance (from expectation values) , translated into dissipation of expected energy value.
One thing that I did not consider (and should have) was the differences in depths. The 04 quakes were quite shallow, and these recent ones (especially the 7.8) were deeper.
Some day, we will have detailed mapping of the faults, in their depths, and connectivity. I think is should be obvious that they do not extend "straight down" from where we see them on the surface. From the core of the Earth, I think that they would appear as lightning; branching out in "random" fashion.
To answer THEY's question, I think that only California (as she mentioned) and around Seattle have these in the cont. US. Japan has around 500, if I remember correctly; quite a difference if you divide by area.
Japan (and international co-op) is leading the way in this EM~Seismic relationship study. They are also completing the first drilling directly into the faults, to significant depths.
The news item that THEY linked, as well as the one I linked a few posts ago, show the "dis-interest" that the Government has.. in successful new ideas. They terminated funding, even after good results were being obtained. Now, that Scientist (Frasier-Smith?) is asking for money again. But the work that was done from '99 (stop funding) until now, was PRIVATE. This is not the way it should be done, IMO.
regards,
T.Roc
If it was a woman who coined the phrase "size doesn't matter", she was probably a therapist, with mainly sexually dysfunctional male clients.
I get a "raspberry" for magnitude..
Size does matter.
However, this does not mean that she was incorrect in stating "location and timing are equally important".
"..maybe we will see this pattern repeated, in the next 24 hrs. If so, with less magnitude, and further south.."
7.8 2007/12/09 07:28:21 -25.872 -177.517
&
5.0 2007/12/12 03:43:58 -4.450 -100.850
~68 hr separation
and
8.1 2004/12/23 14:59:03 -50.145 -160.365
&
9.1 2004/12/26 00:58:53 -3.316 -95.854
~58 hr separation
And, so goes the complexity of "predictions". It may be reasonable to conclude, that the extra time and distance (from expectation values) , translated into dissipation of expected energy value.
One thing that I did not consider (and should have) was the differences in depths. The 04 quakes were quite shallow, and these recent ones (especially the 7.8) were deeper.
Some day, we will have detailed mapping of the faults, in their depths, and connectivity. I think is should be obvious that they do not extend "straight down" from where we see them on the surface. From the core of the Earth, I think that they would appear as lightning; branching out in "random" fashion.
To answer THEY's question, I think that only California (as she mentioned) and around Seattle have these in the cont. US. Japan has around 500, if I remember correctly; quite a difference if you divide by area.
Japan (and international co-op) is leading the way in this EM~Seismic relationship study. They are also completing the first drilling directly into the faults, to significant depths.
The news item that THEY linked, as well as the one I linked a few posts ago, show the "dis-interest" that the Government has.. in successful new ideas. They terminated funding, even after good results were being obtained. Now, that Scientist (Frasier-Smith?) is asking for money again. But the work that was done from '99 (stop funding) until now, was PRIVATE. This is not the way it should be done, IMO.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi all,
"It may be reasonable to conclude, that the extra time and distance (from expectation values) , translated into dissipation of expected energy value."
I guess that it is also reasonable that at greater depths, the energy could take longer time, while "storing" the energy in the mass of the Earth.
The last post was about a 3 day window; at 6 days (and in the expected area) from the 7.8 quake, we got these:
5.8 2007/12/15 08:03:18 -7.612 127.434 193.9 KEPULAUAN BARAT DAYA, INDONESIA
(deep)
and,
6.3 2007/12/15 09:39:49 -6.652 131.189 20.3 KEPULAUAN TANIMBAR REGION, INDONESIA
(shallow).
It's also worth noting, that we got a group of activity in Chile, in the same 3 to ? day period following the 7.8 :
6.0 2007/12/13 05:20:26 -23.163 -70.539 41.2 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
5.3 2007/12/13 05:35:27 -23.069 -70.495 34.3 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
6.2 2007/12/13 07:23:47 -23.013 -70.340 58.7 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
5.0 2007/12/15 11:19:55 -23.044 -70.357 28.6 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
5.8 2007/12/15 18:22:29 -32.681 -71.472 32.2 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
6.7 2007/12/16 08:09:21 -22.555 -69.984 54.8 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
[data from: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recent.../quakes_big.php]
regards,
T.Roc
"It may be reasonable to conclude, that the extra time and distance (from expectation values) , translated into dissipation of expected energy value."
I guess that it is also reasonable that at greater depths, the energy could take longer time, while "storing" the energy in the mass of the Earth.
The last post was about a 3 day window; at 6 days (and in the expected area) from the 7.8 quake, we got these:
5.8 2007/12/15 08:03:18 -7.612 127.434 193.9 KEPULAUAN BARAT DAYA, INDONESIA
(deep)
and,
6.3 2007/12/15 09:39:49 -6.652 131.189 20.3 KEPULAUAN TANIMBAR REGION, INDONESIA
(shallow).
It's also worth noting, that we got a group of activity in Chile, in the same 3 to ? day period following the 7.8 :
6.0 2007/12/13 05:20:26 -23.163 -70.539 41.2 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
5.3 2007/12/13 05:35:27 -23.069 -70.495 34.3 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
6.2 2007/12/13 07:23:47 -23.013 -70.340 58.7 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
5.0 2007/12/15 11:19:55 -23.044 -70.357 28.6 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
5.8 2007/12/15 18:22:29 -32.681 -71.472 32.2 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
6.7 2007/12/16 08:09:21 -22.555 -69.984 54.8 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
[data from: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recent.../quakes_big.php]
regards,
T.Roc
TRoc, "THEY", et al:
I was first suspicious of some kind of connection between Earthquakes and EM waves (and corresponding abnormal charge distributions in the ionosphere) when an article was published about a quake occuring in Hawaii only hours before Hurricane Flossie made landfall there. One of the only things I can do (currently, at least) is to go digging in scientific literature and hope to find something.
You might have seen it in The Global Electric Circuit thread, but I found something by a scientist from Turkey, although I have no way to gauge how accurate the assertions are.
Basically, it reports that uneven charge distributions in the ionosphere are present prior to and during earthquakes, which fits in perfectly with the article "THEY" linked to that was published here on physorg last week.
This is all very logical, and may be somewhat of an interchangable cause and effect: Uneven charge distributions in the local ionosphere stemming from influences such as hurricanes (and perhaps even extreme meteor showers [link]) exert forces on the magma in the outer layer of the mantle and cause earthquakes, and magma moving irregularly in the outer mantle creates irregular EM waves and gives rise to uneven charge distributions in the local ionosphere.
If the link to the paper published in Turkey doesn't work, let me know... I'm currently at work with free access to scientific papers, so sometimes the links don't work for people not on school or research campuses.
I was first suspicious of some kind of connection between Earthquakes and EM waves (and corresponding abnormal charge distributions in the ionosphere) when an article was published about a quake occuring in Hawaii only hours before Hurricane Flossie made landfall there. One of the only things I can do (currently, at least) is to go digging in scientific literature and hope to find something.
You might have seen it in The Global Electric Circuit thread, but I found something by a scientist from Turkey, although I have no way to gauge how accurate the assertions are.
Basically, it reports that uneven charge distributions in the ionosphere are present prior to and during earthquakes, which fits in perfectly with the article "THEY" linked to that was published here on physorg last week.
This is all very logical, and may be somewhat of an interchangable cause and effect: Uneven charge distributions in the local ionosphere stemming from influences such as hurricanes (and perhaps even extreme meteor showers [link]) exert forces on the magma in the outer layer of the mantle and cause earthquakes, and magma moving irregularly in the outer mantle creates irregular EM waves and gives rise to uneven charge distributions in the local ionosphere.
If the link to the paper published in Turkey doesn't work, let me know... I'm currently at work with free access to scientific papers, so sometimes the links don't work for people not on school or research campuses.
Hi all,
am_Unition, thanks for the link, I already had that one. It is an interesting paper.
I have not posted anything on weather, and the connection to the same influence that I propose an EQ connection to. However, it does not escape my notice, and would not be too hard to go back over data with a new info overlay. There is definitely a connection.
IE. for the next several days, we should be getting cooler that normal temps in the S. hemisphere; and look for another tropical storm(s) to develop. (similar to the last week of Nov)
Not that things have slowed down much, but we should have another heavy period of EQ activity this week, too. Nearly all of the largest EQs will be in the S. Hemi. This should sound familiar: I gave the same prediction on Nov 22. That was one solar rotation ago, and the same coronal structure is still exists, albeit further south.
The 7.2 today (ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA) is a good example of what I postulate is a reconnection event. They happen on the "night side", and follow a group of mid-magnitude quakes. They are always a bit bigger than the largest EQ in the group. All the "leftovers" (twisted EM field lines) that are deflected past the Earth, are magnetically reconnected when the plasma temp cools, and come in through the "back door". That side of our magnetopause has far too many variables to contemplate a specific time and location, however, the general case seems to follow a predictable pattern.
In general, my belief is that the Earth does not cause its' own fluctuations from equilibrium state. That main role is played by the Sun; the rest of the action is the Earth returning to said equilibrium.
regards,
T.Roc
am_Unition, thanks for the link, I already had that one. It is an interesting paper.
I have not posted anything on weather, and the connection to the same influence that I propose an EQ connection to. However, it does not escape my notice, and would not be too hard to go back over data with a new info overlay. There is definitely a connection.
IE. for the next several days, we should be getting cooler that normal temps in the S. hemisphere; and look for another tropical storm(s) to develop. (similar to the last week of Nov)
Not that things have slowed down much, but we should have another heavy period of EQ activity this week, too. Nearly all of the largest EQs will be in the S. Hemi. This should sound familiar: I gave the same prediction on Nov 22. That was one solar rotation ago, and the same coronal structure is still exists, albeit further south.
The 7.2 today (ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA) is a good example of what I postulate is a reconnection event. They happen on the "night side", and follow a group of mid-magnitude quakes. They are always a bit bigger than the largest EQ in the group. All the "leftovers" (twisted EM field lines) that are deflected past the Earth, are magnetically reconnected when the plasma temp cools, and come in through the "back door". That side of our magnetopause has far too many variables to contemplate a specific time and location, however, the general case seems to follow a predictable pattern.
In general, my belief is that the Earth does not cause its' own fluctuations from equilibrium state. That main role is played by the Sun; the rest of the action is the Earth returning to said equilibrium.
regards,
T.Roc
Hi all,
I decided to finally start my own thread, to take the idea of Solar precursors to Earthquakes away, so that the statistical analysis of Rafael Peralta can have a more read-able (unbroken by my posts) presentation.
Link to "SEC - Earthquake precursors from the Sun?"
I will continue to participate with this as much as possible, because I believe that RP's work will greatly help the idea of finding when and where the larger magnitude quakes are likely to be.
The "final answer" will (I believe) need both the postulated Sun connection, and a strong survey of fault line connections, and "energy storage". (loading)
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. Rafael has updated his blog, as of 12/25, so we know that he is OK up there in Arica.
I decided to finally start my own thread, to take the idea of Solar precursors to Earthquakes away, so that the statistical analysis of Rafael Peralta can have a more read-able (unbroken by my posts) presentation.
Link to "SEC - Earthquake precursors from the Sun?"
I will continue to participate with this as much as possible, because I believe that RP's work will greatly help the idea of finding when and where the larger magnitude quakes are likely to be.
The "final answer" will (I believe) need both the postulated Sun connection, and a strong survey of fault line connections, and "energy storage". (loading)
ciao,
T.Roc
PS. Rafael has updated his blog, as of 12/25, so we know that he is OK up there in Arica.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.