-
15 ptsCanyonratDecember 30, 2020 at 7:55 pm #10023
I have been monitoring the recent activity in California. Nothing has happened to make me concerned for any thing larger then (4.5+).
The energy has been running along the outer or west side of the Juan de Fuca, then jumping inland and running down the Rogers Creek/Hayward Fault (there are other small sections of this with different names, but it is one long fault) then the Hayward Fault meets of with the San Andreas just east of Monterey Bay and down east of Los Angeles and into the Cortez Sea/Gulf of California.
What I have been watching has been a notable increase in 2.5 to 3.6 energy along this entire distance. So I looked to Alaska and Canada for larger activity and did not see any likely precursors. I also looked across the Pacific (for larger and deeper (5.0+ 150km+) quakes the last few weeks, and again did not see any likely precursors.
So my conclusion is we should not see any activity larger the 4.0 on the western side of California before Jan. 5, 2021. However, the Inyo National Forest in California located on the eastern side of California could see a 5.0 to 6.0 only because they area has been very active with quakes the last few weeks. This 5+ could also strike east near Columbus Nevada as it too has been very active.
Onto my Hypothesis. I continue to watch the Eastern side of the Philippine Sea Plate just north of the Mariana Trench Plate for large and deep quakes to strike. When that happens I have noticed larger quakes strike inland on the West Coast of the United States. I thing the energy is being funneled under the Pacific plate (Mendocino Fracture Zone) roles under the San Andreas and then hits the under side of the North American Plate where it starts to thicken, which is located under the Sierra Mountain Range and east, but the energy finally gets stopped when it hits the next thickening area located on the western side of the Rocky Mountain Range.
This explains why in February or March of this year 2020 I put out a request to help identify locations (using all of your techniques other then my technique) for larger quakes in the western USA. Of which fourteen 5.0-5.9 quakes struck and two 6.0 to 6.9 quakes struck after my request.
Best wishes to all and a very Happy New Year!
May we flush 2020 down the toilet where it rightly deserves to be.
Peace,
Mark
Score: 015 ptsCanyonratDecember 30, 2020 at 8:04 pm #10024As for why I stop the watch on 2020-01-05?
A deep 4.3 just struck on the east side of the Philippine Sea Plate. If the energy is strong enough when it reaches North America we could see 4.4 to 5.4 energy strike. It takes about 10 days for the energy to arrive, that places it on Jan. 5 2020. But my guess is smaller quakes move slower. If you use the depth to Magnitude chart, the 4.3 is 533km deep and 533 adds 1.06 magnitude of strength of rounded up 1.1 so I calculate this quake as a 5.4. I do not expect energy larger then 5.4. If it takes a step down, the we would see 3.9 to 4.9 energy. I decided to be on the upper end of energy (a guess) because California has seen notable small quakes on the plate boundary.
Observed: M 4.3 – 21 km S of Valencia, Philippines 2020-12-29 18:43:22 (UTC)9.416°N 124.226°E 533.4 km depth
Score: 015 ptsCanyonratJanuary 2, 2021 at 7:47 pm #10032A 4.3 just struck where the Hayward and San Andreas meet. An area I posted a watch for 2 weeks ago on Earthquakes Downunder. This area has been active with quakes the last couple of years. This is 4.3 not from the Philippine Sea Plate 4.3 from Dec 29. So my conclusion is this is from the 5.7 that struck offshore of Oregon on Dec 29.
Also of note was a very uncommon 3.3 quake off shore of San Fransisco on Dec 31, to be more precise, right out from the Golden Gate Bridge. It is just worth mentioning because because the USGS did two increased revisions to a 3.6 and even gave us a beach ball “Tensor data” which they often don’t do for small quakes and especially off shore quakes. But over 6000 people felt it. A 3.6 is as violent as riding in a car with good suspension. LOL
Observed: M 4.3 – 10km NW of Pinnacles, CA 2021-01-02 14:42:23 (UTC) 36.608°N 121.213°W 6.4 km depth
M 5.7 – 205 km W of Bandon, Oregon 2020-12-29 07:10:29 (UTC) 43.371°N 126.914°W 10.0 km depth
M 3.6 – 7km S of Muir Beach, CA 2020-12-31 13:41:59 (UTC) 37.799°N 122.594°W 13.1 km depth
Score: 015 ptsCanyonratJanuary 2, 2021 at 7:48 pm #10033https://www.facebook.com/groups/earthquakesdownunder/
Score: 015 pts15 ptsCanyonratFebruary 5, 2021 at 10:15 pm #10240So I got a successful forecast outside of Quake Watch. All of you, my fellow forecasters, impress me very deeply and make me want to be as scientific and exact as possible. And I feel “performance pressure” over here. LOL
So I feel less pressure (all from my own internal thoughts) over on Face Book quake sites. I am in the process of adjusting both my process and attitude. I am trying to focus on small improvements rather then be overwhelmed with looking at ALL of the data available, which leaves me nearly paralyzed intellectually and unable to see ANY POSSIBLE SEISMIC OUTCOMES. LOL So I am back with new and freshened vision and new techniques. And the belief that we can easily find a way to forecast quakes and not be caught off guard. I rather be wrong on a forecast then to miss or say nothing and then have a larger more serious quake occur.
Peace out and success to us all!
Score: 0115 ptslesterFebruary 6, 2021 at 2:19 pm #10244You opened 6 threads relating to locations in US west coast and inland regions, during the last five weeks. You have not had a positive result, and thrown in the towel on at least two of these forecasts. Yet you got a “successful” forecast outside of Quake Watch… where ?
There are now several earthquake sites on the internet since I started prediction… and their popularity ranges from 200 K – 2.5 K. Yet in nearly all cases, it is the same 2 or 3 people that are always posting… where are the “thousands” of others that follow these sites ?
Going off these statistics, you can conclude that earthquake prediction is not a very popular past time. And it is a particular kind of individual that will pursue something that gives virtually no credit or recognition, for the time and effort they invest in trying to make a difference. Many of these websites and Facebook groups publish all different kinds of data relating to earthquakes. And much of this is presented in the form of impressive looking colourful graphs, or virtual topography etc. It is easy to be impressed by what is available to the public, which presumably contributes towards tracking down pre seismic anomalies. You say you want to be as “scientific and exact as possible”… Why ?. Are the same people who post these pretty graphs, making successful forecasts and predictions ?
I think you are having a mid-quake crisis, and trying to absorb a lot of unnecessary information… which you have basically admitted yourself. If you make small improvements and follow the same hypothesis, it is likely that you will be back at this stage again in another 12 months. If you decide to change direction, I will be here, remaining loyal to QUAKE WATCH where things are “simple” !
A tremor is an “event” related to seismicity… or something you get when filling in your tax return… 🙂
Score: 0 -
|
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.