一、巨震事件与灾难 NEIC ： Lisbon,Portugal 1755 November 01 10:16 UTC Magnitude 8.7 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/events/1755_11_01.php Wikipedia ： 1755 Lisbon earthquake Date 1 November 1755 Magnitude 8.5–9.0 M w (est.) Epicenter 36°N 11°W About 200 km (120 mi) west-southwest of Cape St. Vincent . Areas affected Kingdom of Portugal , Kingdom of Spain , Kingdom of Morocco . The tsunami affected Southern Great Britain and Ireland Casualties 10,000–100,000 deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake Historical Depictions of the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake http://nisee.berkeley.edu/lisbon/ 百度： 里斯本 大地震是人类史上其中一次破坏性最大和死伤人数最多的地震之一，也是 欧洲历史上最大的地震 ，其死亡人数高达约 10 万人。大地震后随之而来的火灾和海啸几乎将整个里斯本付之一炬，同时也令到 葡萄牙 的国力严重下降，殖民帝国从此衰落。 这次地震引起海啸近 30 米高，袭击了里斯本海岸，并使英国、北非和荷兰的海岸都遭受损害。甚至在中美洲也观测到相当大的波浪。 18 世纪前欧洲神学界势力较大，不许人们研究地震。里斯本地震后，欧洲的地震研究才从宗教的束缚中解放出来。它造成的影响首次被大范围地进行科学化的研究，标志着 现代地震学 的诞生。 【油画，来自网络，无商业目的，在此致谢！】 现代地震学的诞生 首相 马卢 除了进行重建外，还对各个堂区因地震而影响的情况进行了咨询，问题包括： 地震持续了多久？ 地震后出现了多少次余震？ 地震如何产生破坏？ 动物的表现有否不正常？水井内有什么现象发生？ 对这些问题的科技资料还存放于葡萄牙国家档案馆。通过这些数据，现代科学家就能对这次地震进行重组。假如当时 马卢 没有进行咨询，人们就不能了解这次地震的经过。因为 马卢 是第一个对地震的经过和结果进行客观科学描述的人，他也被认为是 现代地震学的先驱 。 对这次地震的成因，现代的很多科学家还在争议之中 ，但经过与其他涉及隐没带和矩震级高于 9 级的地震比对后，专家也认为里斯本大地震是和大西洋的隐没带有关的。 里斯本大地震 http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=uoHECexf98BBjbVhl5G9O4mScCUrFh4wTlLrjLjvwUS_r6jSbQQlRRnHlRmsX7FERkbHSR0CHAHFRmhc1SyTja 二、 1755 年里斯本巨震的“前生今世” 1755 年里斯本巨震能被预测吗？震级到底是多大？未来是否还有大事儿？下文将探讨并回答这些问题。 “前生”回放： 拉巴特-里斯本 地震区位于欧亚板块与非洲板块的交界地带（图 1 ）。以下分析表明，该地震区至少已经历 1 个完整的孕育周期，目前处于第二孕育周期。 数据分析时， 1900 年之前地震目录参考宋治平等 (2011) 编著的《全球地震目录》一书， 1900 年以来地震目录引自美国国家地震信息中心（ NEIC ）。 图 1 E 区：贝鲁特 - 耶路撒冷、 F 区：奥斯曼尼耶 - 尼科西亚、 G 区：罗德岛 - 克里特岛、 H 区：突尼斯市 - 阿尔及尔与 I 区：拉巴特 - 里斯本 地震区地震构造图 图 2 示出了该区第 1 孕育周期巨震事件之间的力学联系。经误差修正，根据 1522 年 9 月 21 日西班牙阿尔梅利亚 M K 8.0 级地震发生前的 CBS 值，可较准确地连续预测到 1531 年 1 月 26 日葡萄牙里斯本 M K 8.0 级地震、 1614 年 5 月 4 日亚速尔群岛普拉亚 M K 8.0 级地震与 1755 年 11 月 1 日里斯本 M S 8.5 级地震的临界 CBS 值。需指出的是，对 1755 年里斯本 巨 震， NEIC 给出的震级值为 M W 8.7 级， Johnston （ 1996 ）根据海啸波振幅得出的震级值为 M 8.7 级， Gutscher et al . (2006) 运用海啸建模与地震烈度估算该震为 M 8.5~9.0 级， Grandin et al . (2007) 通过与 1969 年里斯本 M S 8.0 （ NEIC 给出的震级为 M W 7.8 ）级地震烈度对比，用速度建模的方法推算该震为 M W 8.5~8.7 级。 1755 年里斯本巨震震级值定为多大合理呢？我们认为该震为 M S 8.5 级合理，理由是：（ 1 ） 1755 年里斯本巨震发生前该地震区积累的能量约为 5.70E+17J ，约相当于两次 M S 8.5 级地震释放能量之和（约为 5.84 E+17J ），即基本满足能量守恒原理；（ 2 ） 1761 年 M S 8.5 级地震发生后，标志着第四锁固段已发生宏观破裂，符合我们对历史震例锁固段破裂特征的认识。 上述分析表明， 1755 年 M S 8.5 级地震与 1761 年 M S 8.5 级地震为双主震事件，可定义拉巴特 - 里斯本地震区为 M S 8.5 级双主震型或 M S 8.7 级单主震型地震危险区。 图 2 拉巴特 - 里斯本地震区 382-1761.3.30 之间 CBS 值与时间关系 （数据分析时选用 M L ≥5.0 级地震事件；横坐标对应的时间减去 3000 年为实际年份；误差修正已被考虑） 总结下， 1755 年里斯本巨震是该区在第一周期，第三锁固段被加载至峰值强度点时发生的一次标志性事件，其孕育过程严格遵循着孕震断层多锁固段脆性破裂理论，导致其发生的直接导火索是 1614 年亚速尔群岛普拉亚 M K 8.0 级震群事件。 与地球上别的地震们一样， 1755 年里斯本巨震 也没有玩出啥新花样，关于其成因不会再有神马争议了吧。 “今世”展望： 图 3 示出了该地震区第二孕育周期大震、巨震事件之间的力学联系，根据 1841 年 6 月 15 日亚速尔群岛维多利亚 M K 7.3 级地震发生前的 CBS 值，可较准确地连续预测到 1855 年 2 月 17 日葡萄牙亚速尔群岛 M K 7.7 级地震、 1941 年 11 月 25 日北大西洋东部 M W 8.1 级地震与 1975 年 5 月 26 日北大西洋东部 M W 7.9 级地震的临界 CBS 值。根据秦四清等 (2014c) 提出的主震事件判识方法，判断该区当前孕育周期应存在第四锁固段，当其被加载至峰值强度点时，应有巨震事件发生。 截止到 2015 年 5 月 4 日，该地震区 CBS 监测值为 2.61E+09J 1/2 ，远离临界值 3.05E+09J 1/2 。对该地震区未来震情预测结果如下：震级： M W 8.0~8.2 级；震中位置：图 8 中 I 区所示预测发震区域 ① 或 ② ；发震时间窗口：长期。预计向临界状态演化过程中，该地震区还将发生不超过 M W 7.9 级的 preshock 事件。我们将跟踪该区地震活动性动态，期望对震中位置和发震时间窗口有更准确的判断。 图 3 拉巴特 - 里斯本地震区 1764.12.26-2015.5.4 之间 CBS 值与时间关系 （数据分析时选用 M L ≥5.0 级地震事件；横坐标对应的时间减去 3000 年为实际年份；误差修正已被考虑） 备注： 在有关论文发表前，请不要复制、转载与外传该博文，违者必究！ 相关阅读： 揭秘 2011 年日本 Mw9.0 级地震：成因、导火索与后劲 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-575926-896863.html 揭秘世界最大地震 ——1960 年智利 Mw9.6 级地震 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-575926-894935.html
The massive earthquake which struck Sichuan Province in the People's Republic of China on May 12th 2008, took the lives of more than 69,000, caused extensive damage in dozens of towns and cities, and displaced millions from their homes. Measuring 7.9 to 8.0 on the Richter Scale, this event has been called both the Great Sichuan Earthquake ( 四川大地震 ) and the Wenchuan Earthquake ( 汶川大地震 ). The Wenchuan Earthquake is by far the largest seismic disaster to strike China since the Tangshan Earthquake ( 唐山大地震 ) hit Hebei Province in 1976, claiming more than 250,000 victims. China Earthquake Geospatial Research Portal , see also data for Japan, Haiti and Chile.
Provenance and earthquake signature of the last deglacial Xinmocun lacustrine sediments at Diexi, EastTibet Hanchao Jiang (蒋汉朝), Xue Mao (毛雪), Hongyan Xu (徐红艳), Huili Yang (杨会丽), Xiaolin Ma (马小林), Ning Zhong (钟宁), Yanhao Li (李艳豪) Well-preserved lacustrine sediments are found in some areas, in East Tibet. This region is characterized by windy and semi-arid climate, alpine valleys, and frequent earthquakes. Measurements of rare earth elements, observations from a scanning electron microscope and a high-resolution record of grain-size measurements allowed us to compare fine sediments from the Xinmocun section in the Diexi Lake, with loess from the Chinese Loess Plateau and South China. Results indicate that fine grains of the Xinmocun lacustrine sediments were transported by wind and trapped in the lake, whereas the 16 μm fraction was likely from local sources. The grain-size changes within the section repeatedly show abrupt coarsening and upward fining, probably due to palaeoearthquake events. Large earthquakes in the study area often caused rockfalls and landslides, exposing fine sediments that had accumulated on mountains’ slopes. The fine grains were then retransported by wind to the Diexi Lake. Optically stimulated luminescence dating of the Xinmocun section indicates continuous deposition from 18.65 to 10.63 ka. These results indicate that palaeoearthquakes in the study area had a mean recurrence interval of ~0.32 ka . Therefore, we propose that lacustrine sediments in a tectonically active region have the potential to record a continuous history of palaeoearthquakes. Palaeoearthquakes probably produced numerous rockfalls and landslides in alpine valleys and provided significant sources of regional eolian dust. GM2014-Jiang et al.pdf
经过 20 年的苦等，圣安德烈斯断层被重点科学监测的部分，在 2004 年 9 月 27 日发生了 6.0 级地震。 “这次地震拖延的时间太久了”， Hough 说：“超出窗口 16 年或 12 年。”（ 参见： Lubick N. 帕克菲尔德最终还是震了 . 国际地震动态， 2005 ， No.2. ） 想知道预期中的地震为何迟到吗？ 可参考俺前几天写的一篇博文： 为何预期中的 Parkfield 6.0 级地震姗姗来迟？ http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=575926do=blogid=678547 若想了解有关该地震的详细情况，请接着往下看： The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Experiment September 28, 2004— M 6.0 earthquake captured The Parkfield Experiment is a comprehensive, long-term earthquake research project on the San Andreas fault. Led by the USGS and the State of California, the experiment's purpose is to better understand the physics of earthquakes - what actually happens on the fault and in the surrounding region before, during and after an earthquake. Ultimately, scientists hope to better understand the earthquake process and, if possible, to provide a scientific basis for earthquake prediction. Since its inception in 1985, the experiment has involved more than 100 researchers at the USGS and collaborating universities and government laboratories. Their coordinated efforts have led to a dense network of instruments poised to capture the anticipated earthquake and reveal the earthquake process in unprecedented detail. 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. These pages describe the scientific background for the experiment, including the tectonic setting at Parkfield, the historical earthquake activity on this section of the San Andreas fault, the monitoring and data collecting activities currently being carried out, and plans for future research. Data are available to view in real-time and download. Scientific Advances While the greatest scientific payoff is expected when the earthquake occurs, our understanding of the earthquake process has already been advanced through research results from Parkfield. Some of the highlights are described. Data Real-time data from instrumentation networks running at Parkfield are available for viewing and downloading Magnitude 6.0 - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 2004 September 28 17:15:24 UTC Details Summary Maps Scientific Technical Additional Info Earthquake Details This earthquake is the anticipated Parkfield earthquake , Mw 6.0 on the San Andreas fault. It ruptured roughly the same segment of the fault that broke in 1966. The earthquake occurred at 10:15 AM PDT on September 28, 2004. Its hypocenter was located at 35 degrees, 49 minutes north, 120 degrees 22 minutes west, at a depth of 8 km or 5 miles. From this point, about 7 miles SW of the town of Parkfield, it ruptured primarily northwest along the San Andreas fault. Strong shaking during this event lasted for about 10 seconds. This earthquake is the seventh in a series of repeating earthquakes on this stretch of the fault. The previous events were in 1857, 1881, 1901, 1922, 1934, and 1966. Magnitude 6.0 Date-Time Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 17:15:24 UTC Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 10:15:24 AM at epicenter Location 35.815°N, 120.374°W Depth 7.9 km (4.9 miles) Region CENTRAL CALIFORNIA Distances 11 km (7 miles) SSE (151°) from Parkfield , CA 18 km (11 miles) N (1°) from Shandon , CA 30 km (18 miles) ENE (76°) from San Miguel , CA 34 km (21 miles) NE (53°) from Paso Robles, CA 217 km (135 miles) SE (141°) from San Jose City Hall , CA Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.4 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 0.6 km (0.4 miles) Parameters NST=248, Nph=248, Dmin=3 km, Rmss=0.11 sec, Gp= 94°, M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=7 Source California Integrated Seismic Net: USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR Event ID nc51147892 This event has been reviewed by a seismologist. Did you feel it? Report shaking and damage at your location. You can also view a map displaying accumulated data from your report and others. Still waiting for the 1987 Parkfield earthquake The San Andreas Fault (SAF) passes through the small town of Parkfield, California, which is situated roughly halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Parkfield has experienced strong (at least M6) earthquakes six times between 1857 and 1966. These quakes, have an average repeat interval of 22 years (24, 20, 21, 12 and 32 years). Excluding the larger and more extensive 1857 earthquake, they have all occurred on almost exactly the same part of the fault. Furthermore, the 1934 and 1966 quakes have very similar-looking seismographs, and each was preceded by a M5 foreshock 17 minutes before the main shock. Another similar earthquake was expected to occur at Parkfield by around 1987, but it still hasn’t happened, and the gap is now 36 years. (For more information on the history of earthquakes at Parkfield see: http://www.johnmartin.com/earthquakes/eqpapers/00000075.htm ) In the mid 1980s the USGS and several California universities initiated an intensive seismic monitoring program at Parkfield. The program now includes the following instrumentation: 12 creep meters (to measure slow aseismic slip on the fault) 2 electronic distance measurement instruments (to monitor displacement) 12 GPS stations (to monitor displacement) 8 dilatational strain meters (to assess strain build-up in rocks) 3 tensor strain meters (to assess strain build-up in rocks) 12 short-period seismometers 10 bore-hole seismometers 30 strong motion sensors (to measure the ground motion associated with a large earthquake) a 2.2 km deep borehole with various instrumentation a proposed 4 km deep borehole with various instrumentation Amongst numerous other studies, earth scientists are monitoring water levels in wells and analyzing data from satellites to assess ongoing ground displacement. (For more information on the research at Parkfield see: http://www.scec.org/instanet/01news/es_abstracts/langbeinES1.pdf ) This unparalleled research effort is being conducted for two main reasons. Firstly, the relatively simple geometry of the SAF at Parkfield allows for a clear understanding of strain accumulation and release on the fault. Secondly, the apparent regularity of the historic earthquakes at Parkfield makes this an ideal site for testing the “time-predictable recurrence model” developed in the 1980s (Shimazaki and Nakata, 1980). Some of the data gathered at Parkfield over the past few decades have been recently analyzed by geophysicists from Stanford University. Their goal is to understand why there is now a 36-year gap between major earthquakes at Parkfield. Murray and Segall (2002) have estimated the rate of strain accumulation on the Parkfield segment of the SAF, and they conclude that the most of the strain released by the 1966 quake had re-accumulated by 1981, and that there is a 95% probability that another large quake should have occurred by 1987. In carrying out this analysis Murray and Segall recognized that some of the strain at Parkfield could have been relieved by the nearby M6.5 Coalinga quake of 1983, and that this could have delayed Parkfield by about 2 years. On the other hand, they also calculate that two small earthquakes in the Parkfield area in 1992 and 1994 (around M4) actually increased strain on the Parkfield rupture zone, essentially countering the delaying effect of the Coalinga quake. The only explanation offered by Murray and Segall is that local variations in pore-water pressure may have affected the tendency for failure on the Parkfield segment – although they have no means of measuring this parameter. Murray and Segall go on to argue that the 36 years worth of strain that has now accumulated at Parkfield is substantially more than that which had accumulated prior to the previous six large earthquakes, and therefore if the segment fails soon (eg. in 2002 or 2003) the resulting quake will likely have a magnitude between 6.6 and 6.9 – which would be significantly more damaging than any of the past five Parkfield earthquakes. References Murray J and Segall P, Testing time-predictable recurrence by direct measurement of strain accumulation and release, Nature , V. 419, p. 287-291 (September 2002). Shimazaki K and Nakata T, Time-predictable recurrence model for large earthquakes , Geophysical Research Letters , Vol. 7, P.279-282 (1980) 附录：地震预测试验场的有关资料 地震预测试验场的概念至少可以追溯到 20 世纪 60 年代大规模的地震预测研究刚刚开始的时候。 60 年代以来，苏联先后在加尔姆—杜尚别、伏龙芝、塔什干、阿什哈巴德、阿拉木图、喀尔巴阡、堪察加等地，美国在加州帕克菲尔德等地，中国在滇西等地 , 土耳其与德国合作在北安纳托利亚 , 欧洲在冰岛等地实施了地震预测试验场计划，在日本东海地区和中国京津唐张地区，有针对性地加强了观测和地震预测研究，在相当意义上也构成了地震预测试验场。 迄今尽管地震预测试验场在地震观测和研究方面取得大量有价值的成果，但在真正的预测检验方面却成果甚少。美国地球物理学家发现，在帕克菲尔德附近的圣安德烈斯断层上的同一地区，发生过若干次中等地震，这些地震的时间间隔约为 22 年。据此，研究人员认为 1988 至 1993 年，这里还将发生另一次 5.5 至 6 级的“特征地震”。 1984 年起，美国地质调查局（ USGS ）选定这一地区作为地震预测试验场，布设了大量仪器，以监测地应变、地倾斜、断层蠕动、地震活动和各种地球物理场的变化，并详细地研究当地的地壳上地幔结构和地球动力学模型。为对这次“即将到来”的地震做出试验性的预测，地震学家甚至制定了发布临震预报和地震警报的方案。然而，时至 2003 年，地震学家“等待”的地震仍没有发生，而距帕克菲尔德不远的 1989 年洛马普列塔地震、 1992 年兰德斯地震、 1994 年北岭地震等一系列地震，都没有发生在地震学家“安排好”的地方。时至 1993 年，地震学家便开始宣称这一试验“已告失败”。 http://data.cea-ies.ac.cn/EarthquakeMechenisim/DataShare/RawData/webfile/5%e6%b5%81%e5%8a%a8%e5%9c%b0%e9%9c%87%e9%a2%84%e6%b5%8b%e8%af%95%e9%aa%8c%e5%9c%ba.mht
Landslides triggered by slipping-fault-generated earthquake on a plateau: an example of the 14 April 2010, Ms 7.1, Yushu, China earthquake. Landslides. doi:10.1007/s10346-012-0340-x。 现在，这个一录用，前期的英文文稿就剩下第一篇完成的了，所谓第一篇，自然是比较拙劣的。经过了无数次的“投稿－拒稿－修改－改投”过程，所费的功夫大概是所有文章中最大的之一了，现在还在大修改回的审稿状态中。 希望能录用，算给前期阶段画个句号。
Identify Study of Earthquake Prediction Volcano Prediction Lijun Chen The global earthquake focal depth data beturn 1963 to 2010 shows, the focal depth of more than 630 km is only 6 places such as Chile, Okhotsk Sea, Philippines, Indonesia, Solomon and Tonga. Focal depth is between 550 km to 630 km only 4 places such as Jappen sea, Marianas trench, Jilin in China and west exit of Mediterranean. Maximum focal depth is between 250 km to 380 km only 7 places such as Guatemala, Haiti,Bering sea, Taiwan and Ryukyu ， Hindukush, Mediterranean and South Sandwich Trench . Also the maximum focal depth is between 180 km to 250 km in Burma. All add up to 18 centers or strips of deep source seismic activity. The upper seismic activity Of these centers just like a tree or a fanlike arrangement, and stretches open along the island arcs or trenchs nearby the surface. The author has defined these special point as seismic mantle plume (see http://blog.sina.com.cn/seisman), top 10 may be defined as super seismic mantle plume. According to the Seismic Geothermics(Chen Lijun, 2000, Seismology and Geology), the earthquake at bottom of seismic mantle plume just like a "engine", constitute the active layer of certain depth mantle by way of rapid migration of heat energy or of critical boiling of mantle material . Mid-depth source earthquake release does not dissipate, can only transfer to upper mantle layer, i.e energy-storage layer. Energy storage layer will be stored energy or transfer upward step by step with gradual release. Arrived near surface, the earth's crust dissipative layer will be spread, and the releases of stored bottom energy will be accured by way of volcanic eruption, or by way of rupture, dislocation or plastic deformation, etc, along the existing fragile generated structures, and will be dissipated exhaustedly with the energy form change of heat energy into mainly mechanical energy. A simple boiled water testing can be roughly simulated the working mechanism of seismic mantle plume. A beaker of water placed above plane heat source. When temperature is appropriate, the bubbles appear and burst immediately on the cup bottom. With increased water temperatures the bubbles rise and burst ceaselessly, the water surface is gradually deformation. When bubbles can raise close to the water surface,it is into "Xiangshui doesn't boil" stage, and then is boiled. Earthquake prediction and volcano prediction is looking for the timing of "Xiangshui doesn't boil". Indonesia is an ideal place of earthquake prediction and volcano prediction research duto its earthquake frequent and volcanic activity. Statistical of relationship of crust earthquakes and volcanos with mid-depth source earthquakes in Indonesia, found below phenomenon: 1) By the statistics of 70 volcanic eruptions of index VEI = 1 and above since 2000 in Indonesia , there were many earthquakes magnitude 5 and above almost every volcano eruption in or before 1 ~ 3 months(table amited, to see the blog of Seisman); 2) When appear a series of deep source seismic activity magnitude 5 and above does to trigger the eruptions of one or more volcanos (Example Table 1); 3) If deep earthquake magnitude 7 and above accured it could trigger volcanic eruption and str ong crust earthquake magnitude 8 and above (Table 2). In the Seismo-geothermics, volcano and mid-depth source earthquake is homologous. The volcano is heat release rushed to the surface, and the mid-depth source earthquake is heat transfer but do not reach the surface. In this sense, the relationship study of volcano and mid-depth source earthquake may be able to find new ways of the volcano prediction and earthquake prediction. Hereby thanks to page web http://www.ncedc.org/anss/ for ANSS earthquake catalogue, and to page web http://www.volcano.si.edu/ for GVP monthly volcanic Bulletin . （ The 2d draft, 2011.3.16 ） Table 1 Volcano coordinate Erupution Starte Date Mid-depth Earthquakes VEI Kerinci -1.697° 101.264° 20080324 20080109 ， 2.52 ° ， 128.56 ° ， 5.3 ， 229 km 20080120 ， 1.79 ° ， 126.72 ° ， 5.10 ， 55 km 20080123 ， -2.83 ° ， 101.22 ° ， 5.00 ， 50 km 20080124 ， -0.11 ° ， 124.00 ° ， 5.0 ， 107 km 20080130 ， -0.16 ° ， 125.08 ° ， 5.5 ， 70 km 20080203 ， -8.20 ° ， 119.86 ° ， 5.0 ， 191 km 20080206 ， 1.91 ° ， 127.05 ° ， 5.0 ， 79 km 20080207 ， -7.58 ° ， 116.81 ° ， 5.7 ， 321 km 20080217 ， -7.58 ° ， 127.66 ° ， 5.3 ， 121 km 20080226 ， -0.60 ° ， 122.23 ° ， 5.0 ， 66 km 20080226 ， -7.04 ° ， 129.68 ° ， 5.0 ， 105 km 20080306 ， 2.57° ， 128.23° ， 5.9 ， 125 km 20080308 ， 1.74 ° ， 127.02 ° ， 5.2 ， 83 km 20080310 ， 1.48 ° ， 126.37 ° ， 5.0 ， 54 km 20080313 ， 1.71° ， 126.64° ， 5.3 ， 64 km 20080316 ， -6.31° ， 130.42° ， 5.0 ， 137 km 20080320 ， 1.57° ， 127.26° ， 5.1 ， 104 km 20080328 ， 1.85° ， 128.47° ， 5.1 ， 67 km 20080330 ， 0.11° ， 98.24° ， 5.2 ， 49 km 20080331 ， -2.85° ， 101.17° ， 5.1 ， 50 km 20080401 ， 1.55° ， 126.30° ， 5.3 ， 52 km 20080402 ， -4.34° ， 102.71° ， 5.7 ， 67 km 20080402 ， -0.15° ， 99.19° ， 5.3 ， 81 km 20080402 ， -7.04° ， 129.20° ， 5.7 ， 180 km 20080403 ， 0.02° ， 127.46° ， 5.0 ， 153 km 20080410 ， -6.42° ， 129.99° ， 5.0 ， 139 km 20080414 ， -7.04° ， 129.18° ， 5.2 ， 150 km 1 Ibu 1.488° 127.63° 20080405 1 Egon -8.67° 122.45° 20080415 2 Table 2 Deep Earthquake Volcanic Eruption or Strong Crust Earthquake Magnitude 8 and Greater Alert 200407251435 -2.42 ° , 103.98 ° M 7.3 H 582 km Volcanic Eruption 20040805, Marapi , -0.381°, 100.473°, VEI ＝ 2 20041001, Rinjani , -8.42°, 116.47°, VEI ＝ 2 20041018, Soputan , 1.108°, 124.73°, VEI ＝ 3? Earthquake 200412260058, 3.29 ° , 95.98 ° , M 9.0, h 30 km 5 monthes before 200503021042 -6.52 ° , 129.93 ° M 7.1 H 201 km Earthquake 200503281609, 2.08 ° , 97.10 ° , M 8.6, h 30 km 26 days before 200601271658 -5.47 ° , 128.13 ° M 7.6 H 397 km 200708081705 -5.85, 107.41 M 7.5 H 280 km Volcanic Eruption 20060506, Merapi , -7.542°, 110.442°, VEI ＝ 1 20060703, Karangetang ,2.78°,125.40°1 20060910, Talang , -0.978°, 100.679°, VEI ＝ 1 20060925, Dempo , -4.03°, 103.13°, VEI ＝ 1 20061214, Soputan , 1.108°, 124.73°, VEI ＝ 1 20070117(?), Batu Tara , -7.792°,123.579°,VEI ＝ 2 20070319, Talang , -0.978°, 100.679°, VEI ＝ 2 200706(?), Soputan , 1.108°, 124.73°, VEI ＝ 3 20070708, Gamkonora , 1.38°, 127.53°, VEI ＝ 2 20070726, Raung , -8.125°, 114.042°, VEI ＝ 2 20070909, Kerinci , -1.697°, 101.264°, VEI ＝ 1 Earthquake 200709121110, -4.43 ° , 101.36 ° , M 8.4, h 34 km 200709122349, -2.62, 100.84, M 7.9, h 35 km 35 days before
EARTHQUAKE WARNING FROM RUSSIAN INSTITUTE of PHYSICS of the EARTH Posted by Real News Reporter on March 12th, 2011 var addthis_product = 'wpp-254'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; A new report released today in the Kremlin prepared for Prime Minister Putin by the Institute of Physics of the Earth, in Moscow, is warning that the America’s are in danger of suffering a mega-quake of catastrophic proportions during the next fortnight (14 days) with a specific emphasis being placed on the United States, Mexico, Central America and South American west coast regions along with the New Madrid Fault Zone region. This report further warns that catastrophic earthquakes in Asia and the sub-continent are, also, “more than likely to occur” with the 7.3 magnitude quake in Japan today being “one of at least 4 of this intensity” to occur during this same time period. Raising the concerns of a mega-quake occurring, this report says, are the increasing subtle electromagnetic signals that are being detected in the Earth’s upper atmosphere over many regions of the World, with the most intense being over the US Western coastal and Midwest regions. Important to note are that Russian and British scientists are at the forefront of predicting earthquakes based on these subtle electromagnetic signals and have joined in an effort to put satellites in space to detect more of them. More ominously in this report are Russian scientists confirming the independent analysis of New Zealand mathematician and long-range weather forecaster, Ken Ring, who predicted the deadly Christchurch quake and this week issued another warning of a quake to hit on or about March 20th. Ring explains his methodology for predicting earthquakes as follows: “The planets very much affect the earth, indirectly, by having an effect on the Sun. Some planets are very large. If the Sun was a basketball the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn would be the size of grapefruits, and the Earth would be, on that scale, the size of a peppercorn. Jupiter and Saturn cause extra tides on the Sun when they get on either side of the Sun (as with Moon – Earth-Sun when the moon is full) and when these gas giants get on the same side as the Sun, (as with Earth -Moon – Sun when the moon is new). These greater solar tides become sunspot activity and solar flares and can be understood as akin to the increase in tides caused by the Moon when it too gets alongside Earth or opposite Earth. At the moment we have Jupiter and Saturn on either side of the Sun and creating a tug of war with Earth in the middle. That started last September and will continue until about May. In September the Earth was right in line with Jupiter, Saturn and the Sun too. That’s why there were several 7+ earthquakes around, it wasn’t just us. For instance there was one in Pakistan on the same day as Christchurch. This Jupiter/Saturn alignment continues until about May, and the Earth comes back into line as well in March. It is why there may be an extreme event, perhaps a large earthquake, around 20 March, which is when the Moon may be again in a trigger position.” According to this report, however, where Ring is correct in assessing blame for our Earth’s earthquakes on the Sun and Planets, his substituting of Perigean Spring Tides (also known as King Tides) for the low pressure systems associated with them may be incorrect. The mention in this report of massive low pressure systems being associated with catastrophic earthquakes is especially dire to the United States Midwestern region, which even today is continuing to be pounded by horrific rainfall amounts, and most especially impacting the New Madrid Fault Zone State of Arkansas which has suffered over 800 earthquakes in the past 6 months alone. Equally in danger, this report continues, is the South American Nation of Bolivia which has, likewise, suffered catastrophic low pressure system storms that in the past week have killed over 52 people. Most ominous in this report, though, is its warning that the fault-riddled State of California may be about to suffer its most catastrophic earthquake in decades as new reports for this region show the mass death of millions of fish is now occurring, and just like the mass stranding of whales on New Zealand beaches days prior to the February 22nd destruction of Christchurch. Making the situation for our Planet even grimmer are the reports that our Sun is continuing to spew forth massive solar flares, the latest warned to hit our Earth today or tomorrow thus prompting the Hermanus Space Weather Warning Centre (SWWC) to issue a Solar Flare warning for the Southern Hemisphere. Interesting to note in all of these events is the United States Army announcing this week that it is holding a rare training event involving the US Military, the CIA, Canadian officers, US Treasury and State departments, the US Agency for International Development, the Defense Threat Readiness Agency and the International Red Cross between March 21-25 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and which should the worst happen they will certainly be prepared for it. As this report concludes, that as of yet, “no firmly reliable” method for predicting earthquakes has been scientifically recognized, it is well worth noting the too many to be ignored anomalous coincidences leading up to catastrophic mega-quakes are breaking out all over the World and should only be ignored at ones peril. In other words, it is always best to be prepared should disaster strike, wherever the warning comes from. 来自： http://www.realnewsreporter.com/?p=843
Bracing for the unknown Abstract Last year's earthquake in China is a salutary reminder about preparing for risk in the face of uncertainty. Despite a century of research into earthquakes, Earth scientists are still only beginning to understand how individual faults behave. Although many dangerous faults have been identified, which has helped countries to strengthen their infrastructure, a significant number of deadly earthquakes occur on faults that are either unknown or were not thought to be particularly dangerous. That knowledge gap was highlighted last year, when a group of faults not particularly high on China's list of hazards linked together in an unexpected manner to spawn one of the most deadly quakes in recorded history, claiming at least 70,000 lives in Sichuan province (see page 153 ). Earthquakes clearly pose the problem of how to prepare for risk in the face of uncertainty. The answer is complex, but can be boiled down to a few fundamental principles that scientists and government leaders should take to heart. Develop a clear message about what is known and just as importantly what is unknown. Be forthcoming about mistakes. And use a broad set of tools to prepare for hazards a strategy that will make communities more resilient to different kinds of threat. Scientists must rigorously assess the limits of their knowledge and communicate them to officials and the public. Earthquake researchers in some regions are getting better at this. California, for example, is one of the best-studied regions in terms of seismic risk. Two decades ago, seismologists there began issuing semi-regular reports on the major threats. Early on, they adopted a relatively rigid approach based on the understanding that segments of the San Andreas fault tended to behave in certain set ways, with characteristically sized earthquakes. But over time, the data and the reports based on them have grown less definite. The most recent assessment, released last year, acknowledges the complexity and uncertainty of fault behaviour more than past reports. Citizens are generally poor judges of the hazards they face. As for public officials, they must admit their mistakes and seek to learn from them a lesson powerfully demonstrated during America's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In Sichuan, a large number of schools collapsed in the quake zone and too few answers have been offered by political leaders there about what happened. Amnesty International reported this month, for example, that the Chinese authorities have detained parents who have demanded information about the collapsed schools that killed their children. The Chinese government must be forthcoming about what happened if it and other countries are to learn from this incident. Engineers who toured the site noted that some types of school building along one of the involved faults did not collapse whereas many others did. Data about school construction would clearly help to save lives in future disasters: the survival of some schools shows that structures can be designed to withstand severe quakes even in regions with limited resources. Scientists, government officials and the public must strive to make societies more resilient to earthquakes and other natural hazards. Social-science research shows that citizens are generally poor judges of the hazards they face: they think they are safe until disaster strikes. The obvious but difficult truth is that societies must prepare for disasters before they occur. That means raising public awareness of the need to do so, something that Japan accomplishes with its annual earthquake drill each September. California last year successfully staged its first such drill and is planning to repeat it in October. With public support, government officials can guard against earthquake losses by taking a multipronged approach. Buildings codes and land-use regulations when rigorously enforced can make structures safer. And societies can improve their ability to respond to quakes by strengthening their emergency systems as well as their capacity for reconstruction. Such preparations will also help nations to weather terrorist attacks, climate change and many of the other threats present on this dangerous planet.
标签: earthquake
