Hi Donald. You’re going to have to humor me. What is there that makes you concerned with a seamount eruption?

The quake is listed as a “double couple” quake meaning that it was tectonic in nature. The “moment tensor solution” shows that the quake had a “down slip” motion. I don’t think this would be the kind of motion one would see if there was a volcano being born in the area. During eruption, the contact between molten rock and seawater produces a very distinct chemical signature. This chemical signature is dominated by the emission of the more volatile elements in the lava and also by the rapid dissolution of the host rock. To the best of my knowledge there have been no reports of such change at the surface.

If indeed there is a volcano being born in the area I suspect it will be much like the Axial volcano off the Coast of Oregon. It’s going to take thousands of years before it makes it presence know at the surface in the form of a volcano.

Your statement “so I must REALLY be concerned when I count 21 global 5M quake in four days” also has me puzzled. There are times when you have more quakes and there are times when you have less. For instance there were 41 quakes with a magnitude of M>7.0 and greater in 1943. 1950 was a close second with 39 quakes above M>7.0. Then again there were only 6 quakes with a magnitude of M>7.0 or greater in 1986.

This why I have a problem with using the position of the moon to predict earthquakes. If you don’t know who much stress is in the area and how close it is to breaking there is very little chance of predicting a major quake. The same thing applies to the data I was using. I got the location and time very close, but the magnitude was always elusive. Still is. Take Care…Don in creepy town