PDA

View Full Version : Lots of earthquakes lately...



gzhpcu
2010-Mar-06, 08:07 AM
First Haiti (7.0) , then Chile (8.8), Taiwan (6.4) and now Sumatra (6.5)...:shifty:

novaderrik
2010-Mar-06, 02:33 PM
yeah, just think, 2012 is only a couple of years away



...(cue dramatic music)...

Moose
2010-Mar-06, 03:08 PM
Meh, there's nothing unusual with this, the press is just covering them more. Remember the "Year of the Shark"? If you listened to the press, it was a catastrophe. In fact, shark attacks were at an all time recorded low that year.

The BBC has been a lot better about covering international news.

hhEb09'1
2010-Mar-06, 06:18 PM
Meh, there's nothing unusual with this, the press is just covering them more. It's more about fatalities, probably. The earthquake in Haiti is listed fourth on the all time deadliest earthquakes on record list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes#Deadliest_earthquakes_on_recor d) (number one was in 1556). That, and the tie-in of the tsunami fear with the 2004 Sumatra earthquake, which is listed number five on that list, accounts for most of the publicity. There's only eight earthquakes listed, and except for those two, there aren't any others in the last thirty years, only one more in the last sixty years.

Swift
2010-Mar-06, 08:01 PM
There is a thread in Science & Technology about this (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/101392-lot-major-earthquakes.html) with all the data.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-07, 01:51 AM
There is a thread in Science & Technology about this (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/101392-lot-major-earthquakes.html) with all the data.
Don't need data to recognize the leadup to 2012. :shifty:

:whistle:

Tobin Dax
2010-Mar-07, 07:06 AM
Don't need data to recognize the leadup to 2012. :shifty:

:whistle:
Nope, you just need to be able to count. (. . . 2010, 2011, 2012) Or was that not what you were talking about? ;)

kleindoofy
2010-Mar-07, 08:04 PM
Nope, you just need to be able to count. (. . . 2010, 2011, 2012) ...
Ahh, but the question is, when counting to 2012, are we counting up or is it a countdown? ;)

Fazor
2010-Mar-07, 09:34 PM
Ahh, but the question is, when counting to 2012, are we counting up or is it a countdown? ;)

Either way's okay, as long as you remember the "ah!-ha-ha!" in between.

cjl
2010-Mar-08, 12:34 AM
First Haiti (7.0) , then Chile (8.8), Taiwan (6.4) and now Sumatra (6.5)...:shifty:
Keep in mind that each order of magnitude is a factor of 31.6 in energy, so a 6.4/6.5 is much smaller than a 7.0, which is vastly smaller than an 8.8. The 8.8 is the only abnormal earthquake event this year (in the sense that one that size is not an event that would occur in a typical year). Other than that, the smaller quakes have all been happening at completely normal rates, and even the 8.8 isn't outside of what would be expected looking at longer term trends.

chrissy
2010-Mar-08, 01:37 PM
Another earthquake has hit a 6.0 Magnitude on the eastern region of Turkey this morning, with 38 deaths already officially reported.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-09, 07:23 PM
BigDon and I will keep our video cameras running so we can post video of the BigOne when it hits here.

NEOWatcher
2010-Mar-09, 07:44 PM
Another earthquake has hit a 6.0 Magnitude on the eastern region of Turkey this morning, with 38 deaths already officially reported.
I also read stories on one in Hawaii, and one in the Aleutians today. But; I don't think they were big enough to hit the news if it weren't for the recent "big ones"

I know that the earth moves in an Earthquake, but I always pictured maybe up to a foot or so.
The Chile quake moved Santiago almost a foot, but moved Concepcion 10 or more feet.
And now our days have shortened by 1.26 microseconds.
Chile quake moves city more than 10 feet (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/03/09/chile.earth.shifts/index.html?hpt=T2)

chrissy
2010-Mar-09, 07:53 PM
Looks like the light will have to go on a tad earlier now.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-09, 08:13 PM
And now our days have shortened by 1.26 microseconds.

It should be noted that the speedup of the earth's rotation predicted for both the Chile earthquake and the Indian Ocean Earthquake of 2004 have not not been verified. Attempts to do so for the Indian ocean Earthquake have failed.

hawaii50girl
2010-Mar-09, 08:43 PM
I also read stories on one in Hawaii, and one in the Aleutians today. But; I don't think they were big enough to hit the news if it weren't for the recent "big ones"

I know that the earth moves in an Earthquake, but I always pictured maybe up to a foot or so.
The Chile quake moved Santiago almost a foot, but moved Concepcion 10 or more feet.
And now our days have shortened by 1.26 microseconds.
Chile quake moves city more than 10 feet (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/03/09/chile.earth.shifts/index.html?hpt=T2)

The earthquake in Hawaii was on the Big Island and it was a 5.0 magnitude. The earthquake that hit the Aleutian Islands in Alaska today was a 5.7 magnitude. You can go to Yahoo to find the information on them because I don't know if I can post links and I don't want to get into trouble if I can't. For the Hawaii earthquake just type in the Star Bulletin which is a Hawaii newspaper their would have information on it.

NEOWatcher
2010-Mar-09, 09:04 PM
The earthquake in Hawaii was on the Big Island and it was a 5.0 magnitude.
The article I read was 4.4, and the current USGS listing confirms that (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/hv00036744.php) (and a 3.2 on Saturday)
Not that 4.4 is nothing. I can understand a blurb in local media to say "yes, your not imagining it). It's just usually not in the national news unless there's an injury or a lot of damage.


The earthquake that hit the Aleutian Islands in Alaska today was a 5.7 magnitude.
5.7 is nothing to sneeze at either, but again, with the frequency of them there, and the sparse population, we normally don't hear much about them unless they are out of the ordinary.

rommel543
2010-Mar-10, 08:06 PM
I heard about something like this years ago and I don't know if it was a theory or fact but; the idea was that a major earthquake could trigger other major quakes globally. The premises was that a major quake causes huge shock waves within the earth that bounce around, presumably for up to a year or more. These shock waves can both spread out and focus down due to multiple reflections, much like sound wave bouncing around in an empty auditorium. If the focus occurs close to a fault line it can trigger the fault to slip due to the vibrational effects it has on the earth's crust. The new quake then can cause additional shock wave and perpetuate the effect.

My concern at the moment is the San Andreas going off again with an 8.0 or higher.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-10, 08:35 PM
I read something similarly, but with the idea that the released tension in one place due to the quake would cause tension to rise in nearby faults because the plates would move to accommodate the release, so the risk of other quakes nearby would be higher.

Naturally there's the other effect that quakes are hot news, so it takes a smaller quake to get reported worldwide, thus more quakes reported in the news shortly after a big one.

rommel543
2010-Mar-10, 09:17 PM
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/

232 earth quakes in the last 7 days. Honestly the number doesn't seem out of line.

Tobin Dax
2010-Mar-11, 12:28 AM
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/

232 earth quakes in the last 7 days. Honestly the number doesn't seem out of line.
That's a cool map. It shows earthquakes within the past hour. In fact, there was a 2.6 magnitude quake on the big island within the hour before this post. :eek: That's a new bookmark.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-11, 04:55 AM
My concern at the moment is the San Andreas going off again with an 8.0 or higher.
Although one can't make hard and fast predictions about such things, the possibility of a quake of that magnitude along the San Andreas in the next 20 to 50 years is relatively low. However, there seems to be more built-up stress, and therefore greater probability for a strong quake, down in the Los Angeles area than then here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

rommel543
2010-Mar-11, 03:09 PM
Although one can't make hard and fast predictions about such things, the possibility of a quake of that magnitude along the San Andreas in the next 20 to 50 years is relatively low. However, there seems to be more built-up stress, and therefore greater probability for a strong quake, down in the Los Angeles area than then here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I have family both in San Fran and L.A. Luckily the ones from San Fran were up here visiting when the big quake hit there in 89. The one thing that I have learned is that regardless what scientists and measurements tell us, every once in awhile Mother Earth stands up and gives us one hell of a smack down that comes completely out of no where. I'm sure there is a "hidden" fault somewhere highly inconvenient for us, or a sleeping volcano that we've written off as dormant/dead that will wake up in a Krakatoa-like explosion.

I'm not a fatalist, but I am a realist and regardless what the numbers are that one in a million sometimes comes true.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-12, 05:26 AM
I have family both in San Fran and L.A. Luckily the ones from San Fran were up here visiting when the big quake hit there in 89. The one thing that I have learned is that regardless what scientists and measurements tell us, every once in awhile Mother Earth stands up and gives us one hell of a smack down that comes completely out of no where.

I don't think any scientist is going to say that residents of either San Francisco or Los Angeles are in any way safe from earthquakes at any time. They are a fact of life along the San Andreas fault. These quakes don't come out of nowhere, they are a result of fault-locking along the continental transform fault (the San Andreas fault) that runs the length of California.




I'm sure there is a "hidden" fault somewhere highly inconvenient for us, or a sleeping volcano that we've written off as dormant/dead that will wake up in a Krakatoa-like explosion.

Um, the San Andreas fault is a transform fault, and volcanic activity is not associated with this type of faults. In addition, there are no hotspots or other tectonic features located along the California coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles that are associated with volcanic activity.

The general nature of the plate movements along the California coast and their association with earthquake activity are pretty well understood. The difficulty comes in making predictions as to when major events might arise since the timescales on which they occur and the error bars associated with each event are extremely large. Like the weather, there are many factors that are yet to be understood.

The Krakatoa eruption occurred along a subduction zone where such violent eruptions are well known to take place. There is no doubt that additional events of that magnitude will occur along that fault. What cannot be predicted with accuracy is exactly when.




I'm not a fatalist, but I am a realist and regardless what the numbers are that one in a million sometimes comes true.
Well, I think you can be pretty certain that there are not going to be any volcanoes erupting between SF and LA any time soon.

Jens
2010-Mar-12, 06:00 AM
Um, rommel543's profile says he/she lives in Canada. I think that's what was meant by the "maybe there is a hidden fault," i.e. that there is no fault where he/she lives, wherever in Canada that is. I agree the message wasn't worded very clearly, but that's the way I understood it.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-12, 06:37 AM
Um, rommel543's profile says he/she lives in Canada. I think that's what was meant by the "maybe there is a hidden fault," i.e. that there is no fault where he/she lives, wherever in Canada that is. I agree the message wasn't worded very clearly, but that's the way I understood it.
Yeah, I wasn't sure if he was talking about family or self.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-12, 07:32 AM
When I was in sixth grade, our science teacher hauled out a map of fault lines in the Los Angeles area, and we all went looking to see who had a fault directly under their house.

Jens
2010-Mar-12, 07:36 AM
If there wasn't, could you get no-fault insurance?

NEOWatcher
2010-Mar-12, 02:20 PM
The general nature of the plate movements along the California coast and their association with earthquake activity are pretty well understood.
And its not just the popularly known earthquake prone areas like California. They even know the general nature of Earth movements in areas where you wouldn't suspect like around us (http://www.ohiodnr.com/geosurvey/gen/seismic/sum86/tabid/7896/Default.aspx).

hawaii50girl
2010-Mar-14, 02:05 AM
The article I read was 4.4, and the current USGS listing confirms that (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/hv00036744.php) (and a 3.2 on Saturday)
Not that 4.4 is nothing. I can understand a blurb in local media to say "yes, your not imagining it). It's just usually not in the national news unless there's an injury or a lot of damage.


5.7 is nothing to sneeze at either, but again, with the frequency of them there, and the sparse population, we normally don't hear much about them unless they are out of the ordinary.

I read the about the Hawaii earthquake from something that I have on My Yahoo that's from the USGS that measures earthquake. I find out about the Hawaii earthquake from CNN when I was flipping through the channels so I want on my laptop to see where I could find more information on it. I didn't find much just on that USGS thing I have. About the Aleutian Island earthquake it was an article that I saw but I didn't read it because I was looking for the Hawaii earthquake.

The Backroad Astronomer
2010-Mar-14, 05:53 AM
I have family both in San Fran and L.A. Luckily the ones from San Fran were up here visiting when the big quake hit there in 89. The one thing that I have learned is that regardless what scientists and measurements tell us, every once in awhile Mother Earth stands up and gives us one hell of a smack down that comes completely out of no where. I'm sure there is a "hidden" fault somewhere highly inconvenient for us, or a sleeping volcano that we've written off as dormant/dead that will wake up in a Krakatoa-like explosion.

I'm not a fatalist, but I am a realist and regardless what the numbers are that one in a million sometimes comes true.
Well Point Lepreau a nuclear power plant is built on a hidden fault.

Tobin Dax
2010-Mar-14, 08:31 AM
According to the USGS map real-time map linked above, there was just a 6.6 magnitude quake in Japan and a 5.4 in Chile. Looks like Chile also had a 5.0 yesterday. I'll have to look for more about the Japan quake after I get up in the morning.

01101001
2010-May-29, 09:21 PM
First Haiti (7.0) , then Chile (8.8), Taiwan (6.4) and now Sumatra (6.5)...:shifty:

Then (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/):

Magnitude 7.2 BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO April 04, 2010
Magnitude 6.3 SPAIN April 11, 2010
Magnitude 6.9 SOUTHERN QINGHAI, CHINA April 13, 2010
Magnitude 4.9 UTAH April 15, 2010
Magnitude 6.5 SOUTHEAST OF TAIWAN April 26, 2010
Magnitude 7.2 NORTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA May 09, 2010
Magnitude 5.8 PUERTO RICO May 16, 2010
Magnitude 7.2 VANUATU May 27, 2010

Recent activity keeps fitting well with recent annual global averages (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php):
8 and higher 1 (about 0.1/month)
7 - 7.9 15 (about 1/month)
6 - 6.9 134 (about 10/month)

Booga-booga!

HUb'
2010-Jun-05, 10:10 AM
20100605 the Lunar Distance thread has become unreliable: yesterdays post vanished and todays will also is my guess |/1,

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/102715-Lunar-Distance?p=1724834#post1724834
as far as Quaks go? april was the alignment Month however Much of the action may have
taken place in March (front loading}? have not been paying much ATTention