|
|
|
|
| 6.5 Magnitude 2010/01/10 California Earthquake Analysis January 10, 2010 |
As far as I am aware, no one on the planet is presently keeping track of how well various earthquake forecasting methods are doing with detecting the approach of significant earthquakes. So, when one does occur, for the benefit of researchers and other interested parties around the world, individual researchers, university groups, and government agencies etc. need to evaluate how well their methods did and then somehow circulate that information with reports such as this one. These are personal opinions. The data in this report are related to the following moderately destructive earthquake that occurred off the coast of Northern California on January 10, 2010. At the very least it reportedly caused some electric power disruption for quite a few people. The charts and maps shown here were generated by an advanced version of the freeware Etdprog.exe earthquake forecasting program. Where there is a peak starting to appear at some longitude on recent Averaged EM Signal Time Windows it means that there could be some significant seismic activity along that longitude line. If any of the charts or maps in this report do not display properly then an attempt will be made to correct them in an attached post. They might not display at all for people who are using slower dialup Internet connections. The first chart is a copy of Chart A that was stored on my Data.html Web page on January 10, 2010.
It can be seen that there is a fairly strong peak at 124 W and going a little to the east of that. Based on those data earthquake researchers checking for other earthquake precursors along that longitude line might have been able to spot the approach of the January 10 earthquake.
The next chart is a copy of Chart A that was stored on my Data.html Web page on January 5, 2010. With this one it would have been more difficult for earthquake researchers to determine that they should be looking around the 124 W longitude line for earthquake precursors. And it is surprising to me that there is no strong, sharp peak at 124 W considering how powerful the earthquake was. However, some of the EM Signals detected between January 5 and January 9 might have been pointing to the approach of that earthquake. And that might then be the reason for the difference between this chart and the one above.
The next chart is the same as the first one, but with some additional data added at the top. The top line (1) is for the January 10 earthquake. In theory it should have a strong peak at 124 W where the earthquake occurred. However there isn’t one there. Instead there is a peak at 122 E longitude and an even stronger one at 127 E. That indicates to me that the earthquake was not triggered by the sun and moon gravity related forces that trigger the "average" earthquake that occurs at 124 W. And that could be the reason that the Etdprog.exe program did not do a better job of determining where the January 10 earthquake might occur. The second line (2) is for a January 4, 2010 earthquake that occurred in the same area. 2010/01/04 14:24:54 40.27N 123.86W 31 4.1 California Once again, there is no strong peak in the 124 W area. But as with the January 10 earthquake there are peaks at 122 E and 127 E. Lines 3 and 4 are for two strong EM Signals that were detected in December of 2009. They are both good matches for the two January earthquakes. And I believe that both signals were probably indicating that the earthquake was approaching, especially the December 9 signal. Neither has a strong peak in the 124 W area.
So, the earthquake might have been generating strong, useful EM Signals that were pointing to its approach for weeks or even months before it occurred. The Etdprog.exe program generates longitude information for expected earthquakes by using specialized probability equations that attempt to match EM Signals with past earthquakes that occurred at various longitudes. Unfortunately, that approach works only for approaching earthquakes that generate EM Signals that will match past earthquakes with triggering characteristics that point to the right fault zone. And that was apparently not the case here. The next chart is for EM Signals that were detected just before the destructive December 22 and December 26, 2003 earthquakes in California (122 W) and Bam, Iran (58 E). The strong peak at 122 W on the upper Time Window lines would be typical for an approaching earthquake that did generate EM Signals that the present version of the Etdprog.exe program could identify.
The map below shows the location of the January 10 earthquake on a background of the Earth’s continents.
The map below shows the location of the January 10 earthquake on a background of the Earth’s tectonic plates. And I would like to thank earthquake researcher Roger Hunter for supplying the tectonic plate data. I believe that they were originally generated by a U.S. government agency.
The map below shows the location of the January 10 earthquake on a background showing both the Earth’s continents and its tectonic plates.
This final map is for the 15 day Averaged EM Signal Time Window on the January 10, 2010 version of Chart A. It appears on the map that the Etdprog.exe program concluded that the earthquake might occur a little to the east of where it did occur. It is possible that strain associated with the approaching earthquake was causing fault zones to the east of the earthquake to generate some of the EM Signals that were being detected.
Follow Ups: ● Damage Reports January 13, 2010 - EQF 05:20:15 - 1/13/2010 (76380) (0) ● Earthquake Advisory Jan. 11, 2010 - EQF 12:37:21 - 1/11/2010 (76367) (0) |
|
|
|
|
