|
discouraging Parkfield EM results |
from next week's AGU meeting: Seismomagnetic Effects from the Long-awaited September 28, 2004, M6 Parkfield Earthquake Johnston, M J USGS, Menlo Park and others Precise measurements of local magnetic fields have been obtained with a differentially connected array of seven synchronized proton magnetometers located along 60 km of the locked-to-creeping transition region of the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield, CA. since 1984. The M6 Parkfield earthquake on September 28, 2004, occurred within this array and generated coseismic magnetic field changes of between 0.2 and 0.5 nT at five sites in the network. No preseismic magnetic field changes exceeding background noise levels are apparent in the magnetic data during the month, week and days before the earthquake (or expected in light of the absence of measurable precursive deformation, seismicity or pore pressure changes). Observations of electric and magnetic fields from 0.01 to 20 Hz are also made at one site near the end of the earthquake rupture and corrected for common-mode signals from the ionosphere/magnetosphere using a second site some 115 km to the northwest along the fault. These magnetic data show no indications of unusual noise before the earthquake in the ULF band (0.01 Hz to 20 Hz) as suggested may have preceded the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Nor do we see electric field changes similar to those believed to occur before earthquakes of this magnitude from data in Greece. [omitted some details]. The absence of electric and magnetic field precursors for this, and other earthquakes with M5-7.3 elsewhere on the San Andreas fault, indicates useful prediction of damaging earthquakes seems unlikely using these electromagnetic data. Follow Ups: ● more on Parkfield EM results - John Vidale 09:11:21 - 12/4/2005 (31431) (2) ● Re: more on Parkfield EM results - Canie 09:57:04 - 12/6/2005 (31575) (1) ● yep - John Vidale 19:03:27 - 12/6/2005 (31603) (1) ● Re: yep - Don in Hollister 19:59:45 - 12/6/2005 (31605) (0) ● My Condolences, John - Petra 10:14:19 - 12/4/2005 (31453) (2) ● Re: My Condolences, John - Cathryn 15:33:51 - 12/5/2005 (31561) (0) ● maybe I wasn't clear - John Vidale 10:55:09 - 12/4/2005 (31455) (2) ● Re: maybe I wasn't clear - Don in Hollister 11:53:04 - 12/4/2005 (31463) (1) ● Petra/Don, you and John are - Roger Hunter 13:34:31 - 12/4/2005 (31469) (0) ● Re: maybe I wasn't clear, Oh I think you were. - Petra 11:47:49 - 12/4/2005 (31462) (1) ● misgivings - John Vidale 12:12:25 - 12/4/2005 (31464) (2) ● Re: misgivings - Petra 13:01:19 - 12/4/2005 (31468) (1) ● a plausible explanation? - John Vidale 19:42:27 - 12/4/2005 (31504) (1) ● Re: a plausible explanation? Infrasound? - Petra 20:40:41 - 12/4/2005 (31506) (1) ● infrasound is just long-period sound - John Vidale 21:39:48 - 12/4/2005 (31511) (1) ● Re: infrasound is just long-period sound - Petra 23:11:14 - 12/4/2005 (31516) (0) ● Re: misgivings - Don in Hollister 12:43:42 - 12/4/2005 (31467) (1) ● Re: misgivings - chris in suburbia 15:19:10 - 12/4/2005 (31474) (1) ● Re: misgivings, hopefully none. - Petra 18:47:26 - 12/4/2005 (31502) (2) ● research dollars - chris in suburbia 04:12:39 - 12/5/2005 (31518) (1) ● Re: research dollars/no comment - Petra 04:58:27 - 12/5/2005 (31521) (1) ● ??? (NT) - Cathryn 17:41:44 - 12/5/2005 (31566) (0) ● For Petra/Curious to know - Todd 20:29:21 - 12/4/2005 (31505) (2) ● Re: For Petra/Curious to know - Cathryn 16:14:05 - 12/5/2005 (31562) (0) ● Re: For Petra/Curious to know - Petra 20:44:26 - 12/4/2005 (31507) (1) ● Re: For Petra/Curious to know - Cathryn 17:46:05 - 12/5/2005 (31568) (0) |
|