Earth's Moon & Earthquakes: A Causal Connection?

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
Anome_ said:
I'd be more concerned that he only changes them at most once a fortnight.
If I changed them four times a day, it would still be true that it was within 6-7 days of a New or Full Moon! ;)

(Luckily, it's rarely more than twice a day... :oops: )
 

Cultjunky

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,581
rynner2 said:
Anome_ said:
I'd be more concerned that he only changes them at most once a fortnight.
If I changed them four times a day, it would still be true that it was within 6-7 days of a New or Full Moon! ;)

(Luckily, it's rarely more than twice a day... :oops: )

Well, you are of an age where that kind of thing can't be helped.

Rynner - you haven't just opened a door to let a bit of teasing in, you've put the kettle on and got the chocolate hobnobs out too :lol:
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
Cultjunky said:
Rynner - you haven't just opened a door to let a bit of teasing in, you've put the kettle on and got the chocolate hobnobs out too
My hobnobs aren't always that colour!!

(And the kettle's on because I need a - erm - wash...)
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
rynner2 said:
As for the 'supermoon', what do you expect? Care to give us a prediction we can check?

I can predict that tides will probably be a bit higher and lower than usual.

At the remote end I would expect a significantly large quake or volcanic event up to 6 days after (maybe Katla might go off). Although statistically there should only be a quake of the magnitude that recently hit Japan every 5 - 10 years.

Of course there are quakes all over the world all the time. But it's worth remembering that the Richter Scale by which they are commonly reported isn't a simple progression where a magnitude of 4 is twice as severe as 2. It's a logarithmic scale where 4 is a thousand times more powerful than a 2. So the significance of an increase from the averages of around 3 to 4m rising to 6 - 7.3m becomes more noteworthy.
By Richter Scale, the 8.9m Japanese quake was 700 million times more severe than the 3 magnitude quake they'd been warned to expect.


I didn't realise there would be so much hostility to the concept of an orbiting body which affects the tides possibly having an effect on earth's molten core.

As for my prediction - Christchurch happened 4 days after a full moon. You can check that
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
48,153
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Surely a full moon is simply the Moon being in a particular position relative to the Sun, so that more light falls on it?
That extra light reflecting off the moon can't be causing the earthquakes, can it?

If the moon is moving towards Earth and then away more rapidly, then I could understand - because, yes, tidal effects would cause massive strains in the Earth's crust.
I'm wondering if the sudden increase in solar activity may be causing further heating by magnetic induction and an increase in ion flow around Earth. Perhaps this effect is made worse when the Moon is out of the way (i.e. in full moon phase). If that is the case, then maybe there is your correlation...?
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
Mythopoeika said:
Surely a full moon is simply the Moon being in a particular position relative to the Sun, so that more light falls on it?
That extra light reflecting off the moon can't be causing the earthquakes, can it?

The Proxigean Spring Tide is a rare, unusually high tide. This very high tide occurs when the moon is both unusually close to the Earth (at its closest perigee, called the proxigee) and in the New Moon phase (when the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth). The proxigean spring tide occurs at most once every 1.5 years.

Perhaps this animated illustration may help clarify things....


http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
48,153
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Proxigean Spring Tide...interesting...
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
jimv1 said:
Perhaps this animated illustration may help clarify things....

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/
Well, thanks, but I'm already very familiar with tides, both practically, because of my time at sea, and mathematically, because of my long-time interest in astronomy.

And you still haven't explained why you expect earthquakes after a full moon, when the gravitational forces are in the 'neap tide' state.
 

Cultjunky

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,581
jimv1 said:
I didn't realise there would be so much hostility to the concept of an orbiting body which affects the tides possibly having an effect on earth's molten core.

Sorry if you see this as hostility, I'm sure that's no-ones intent. I think the issue is that there is so much seismic activity on a daily basis, trying to find patterns in any data taken from that activity is reminiscent of the todo and hoo har that went on regarding secret codes in the Bible. It turns out that the patterns deemed to be secret Bible code are also prevalent in Tolstoy's War and Peace, thereby debunking the secret code claim.

There will be patterns in the data for seismic activity, but that doesn't mean that the patterns have any significance. Equally, the parameters you have set for +/- 6 days around full moon are far too wide, that parameter equates to half the year.

I don't doubt that "the concept of an orbiting body which affects the tides possibly having an effect on earth's molten core" is a valid concept, however, geophysics isn't a string in my bow, but to try to demonstrate a correlation between lunar cycles and seismic activity will always raise conflicting data at the same time.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
rynner2 said:
jimv1 said:
Perhaps this animated illustration may help clarify things....

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/
Well, thanks, but I'm already very familiar with tides, both practically, because of my time at sea, and mathematically, because of my long-time interest in astronomy.

And you still haven't explained why you expect earthquakes after a full moon, when the gravitational forces are in the 'neap tide' state.

Be fair. That reply was pointed at Mythopoeika and wasn't meant as an egg sucking lesson for you. And I wasn't aware of your familiarity with the tides in any case.
I am interested in this idea and not propsing to write some major thesis on it a later date and I don't think it's the main role of this site to propel ideas into the scientific mainstream when the thrust of the FT deals more with the hinterland of events and discoveries. I have nothing to gain or prove here.

If the theory is correct (and the majority of scientists say there's nothing in it) perhaps the reason behind quakes occurring in a neap tide i.e. after the full moon could be down to a delay caused by the differing viscosity of water and molten rock which would be slower to react to a gravitational pull. Everyone agrees it's clear that plates are continually shifting around. I am simply wondering if the full or (as we have here) new moon could be a catalyst for more dramatic action.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
Cultjunky said:
jimv1 said:
Equally, the parameters you have set for +/- 6 days around full moon are far too wide, that parameter equates to half the year.

It does. That's why the parameters I set myself are for around a narrower 6 days afterwards not before.
 

uair01

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,362
Location
Rotterdam
Very abstract but chilling data - I hadn't imagined that pure scientific measurements could look so shocking:

https://flic.kr/p/9pQhy4

For archival purposes, here's the image ...

5520554611_be2aa8065d_h.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
Bad moon rising?
Tomorrow, the Earth's satellite will be as close to us as it has been in 20 years, and some say disaster will trail in its wake. Are they right? Jerome Taylor looks to the sky for answers
Friday, 18 March 2011

What's that in the sky? Is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it's Super-Moon. Tomorrow evening, the world will be treated to a lunar phenomenon. Those who rarely look upwards will probably not notice anything particularly different about the night sky. But regular star-gazers will see that the Earth's ghostly neighbour appears slightly larger and brighter than it usually does.

That is because the moon is going to be closer to Earth tomorrow night than at any other time during the past 18 years. The more excitable of astrologers describe such an event as a "Super-Moon" and, because the moon is at the fullest part of its cycle, tomorrow's phenomenon has even been upgraded to an "extreme Super-Moon".

For amateur and professional astronomers, a lunar perigee, which describes when the moon is closest to us, offers an opportunity to get up close and personal with our nearest extraterrestrial body. But for the more conspiracy-minded, a super moon is a far from welcome sight.

Even before Japan's devastating earthquake struck Honshu, certain sections of the global blogosphere were already warning in breathless tones about an upcoming Moon armageddon caused by the extra gravitational pull of the moon's proximity. Richard Nolle, an American astrologer who claims to have coined the phrase "super moon" and – according to his own website – foresaw the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings, has predicted a whole host of global meteorological nightmares this weekend, including a surge in extreme tides, magnitude 5+ earthquakes and a slew of powerful storms.

"Being planetary in scale," he added ominously, "there's no place on our home planet that's beyond the range of a super moon, so it wouldn't hurt to make ready wherever you are or plan to be during the March 16-22 super moon risk window." :shock:

After the Japanese earthquake struck, what further proof was needed, especially once fellow bloggers claimed that the 2004 Asian tsunami and a large Australian flood in the mid-1950s also occurred close to a lunar perigee? Fortunately, seismologists, astronomers and most scientific consensus demand a lot more evidence before we blame the moon for natural disasters.

At its perigee, the moon is about 220,000 miles from Earth; at its furthest point, 254,000 miles. Although the moon's gravitational pull is a factor in oceanic tides, there is little evidence to suggest that its pull is great enough to have any substantial effect the Earth's tectonic activity or lead to freak weather patterns.

"Don't get me started on the blogosphere," says a rather weary Kevin Horsburgh, from the National Oceanography Centre in Liverpool which monitors Britain's tidal pattern. "I don't know where they get their ideas. But the great thing about astronomy-driven tidal measurements is that they are completely predictable."

Tidal forces from the moon, Dr Horsburgh says, are roughly 10 to 15 per cent stronger during a lunar perigee which coincides with the spring tides once every four and a half years. "But that doesn't mean we'd expect the tides to be 10 to 15 per cent higher," he adds. At most, scientists say, we might expect to see tides rise by about an inch during a Super-Moon phase, hardly a figure that should create panic.

The Super-Moon scare stories have flourished unchecked on the Web among a long list of conspiracy theories. Phil Plait, writer of the Bad Astronomy blog (subtitle: "The universe is cool enough without making up crap about it"), aimed at debunking scientific myths, says attributing such powers to the moon makes no scientific sense. "Think about it," he says. "If there were some connection, and it were this obvious, geologists and seismologists would be issuing warnings every perigee and every full moon. These are people who have devoted their lives to understanding how the earth shakes, and would be screaming their heads off if it were something as easy and obvious as the moon. They don't because there's no connection."

The Japan earthquake and the Boxing Day tsunami struck during the lunar apogee, when the moon is furthest from us. In a phone call from Nevada, Mr Nolle said he had never blamed those events on Super-Moon theory. "But there are plenty of others," he said. "Christchurch, SuperMoon; Hurricane Katrina, SuperMoon. The scientific critics are not even attempting to look at super moon theory, they just go for the knee-jerk reaction."

Ironically, there is scientific evidence to suggest that the earth's gravitational pull causes earthquakes on the moon. 8)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 45362.html

I've just checked the local tide predictions: Spring Tides (of course) over the next few days, reaching a peak on Monday, but nothing exceptional for here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast_and ... bles/10/5/

(The tide reaches its peak a few days after full moon because much tidal behaviour is down to resonance. The English Channel is of such a size that the water sloshes up and down it in resonance with the tidal forces of the moon - when it's HW at one end of the Channel, it's LW at the other end. This resonance effect cannot occur in a solid body like the Earth.)
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
ttaarraass said:
Video: USA next? Major earthquake predicted by (former) mainstream geologist:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4584933/ ... -imminent/

(Fox News.)

Very interesting video. Thanks for finding that ttaarraass.
Former USGS Geologist Jim Berkland states that this month there is a greater risk of a major quake in North America because 'On the 19th of this month, we're having not only the Full Moon but within an hour, the closest approach of the moon till the year 2016'....you're bringing together the three of the maximum tide raising forces'.

Why would a respected geologist warn of a seismic window between the 19th and the 26th of this month if the moon doesn't affect the Earth?

I used to just scoff at these kinds of things because I was a mainstream geologist until I found out that earthquakes are fitting a pattern'
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
A 'respected' geologist, eh? Not by everyone:
Controversy

Critics counter that the majority of predictions he has made since his 1989 prediction are much less specific than that one, and that he has since been unable to make a public prediction of similar significance before an event.[citation needed]

Other scientists have reviewed and debunked several statistical correlations advocated by Berkland and others in predicting earthquakes, including lost pets[6] and syzygy of the moon.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Berkland#Controversy
There are many references to him on the web. He may have been mainstream once, but now he's seen as a bit of a maverick.

Still, if he keeps making predictions, he's bound to get lucky again one day, given the number of quakes that occur around the world!
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
This happens on a spring tide:
Surfers ride four-star Severn bore

Surfers and kayakers turned out to ride a wave on a four-star River Severn bore through Gloucestershire on Sunday morning.

The surge wave, which ranges from one-star up to five-stars, is caused by the incoming tide being funnelled up the narrowing Severn Estuary.

Similar four-star waves are also expected on Monday and Tuesday.
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gl ... e-12799199
To return to my remarks about resonance being involved in ocean tides; this is because the tide raising forces are so tiny that only when the rhythm of the changing forces match the natural oscillation rate of a body of water will a significant movement of the water occur.

This also explains why there are bodies of water with practically no tides, like the Med or the Baltic - the tide raising forces are there, but the size of the sea precludes resonance.

EDIT: This happens too on spring tides:
Cornwall high tides alert after strandings

Coastguards have warned people about high spring tides after a number of people were rescued in Cornwall.

Seven teenage girls were rescued after they were cut off by the tide and stranded on rocks at Freathy Beach in Whitsand Bay on Saturday.

A man and a woman were also rescued after climbing 30ft up a cliff as the tide trapped them between Trevaunance and Trevellas Porth.

Two 17-year-old boys were also cut off by the tide at Watergate near Newquay.

Seven girls aged 13 and 14 were rescued from Whitsand Bay by Plymouth RNLI inshore lifeboat at about 1700 BST.
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-12799487
It happened when I was in the Coastguard years ago - people never learn!
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
'Moon man' predicts earthquakes
A "lunar forecaster" who was mocked by scientists after he claimed to have predicted the devastating earthquake in Christchurch has correctly predicted another tremor.
11:43PM GMT 23 Mar 2011

Ken Ring warned that an aftershock would hit Christchurch on Sunday, leading scientists to make public a bet that it would not.
However, they were left shocked when the city was indeed shaken by the biggest aftershock since the February catastrophe, which killed more than 182 people.

Mr Ring, a fishing commentator, has become a source of heated debate in New Zealand in recent weeks due to his earthquake predictions, which are based on the belief that quakes are caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon on tectonic plates.

Seismologists have dismissed the theory, but it has gained a following in the country as word has spread that Mr Ring, nicknamed "Moon Man", appeared to have correctly predicted a quake in September and the disaster last month.

When Mr Ring warned that on the morning of 20 March, as the moon passed close to the Earth, another quake would strike some Christchurch residents believed him and decided to get out of town. But Mr Ring was pilloried by sections of the media, politicians, and the scientific world.

Then on Sunday to prove their point a group of geologists, engineers, and a cabinet minister with a PhD in geotechnical engineering held a lunch in one of Christchurch's oldest, tallest buildings, at the time the "7 plus" doomsday quake was supposed to strike.

Lunch was unaffected by any tremors but at 9.47pm the city was shaken by a 5.1 magnitude aftershock. Although it was less powerful than Mr Ring had prophesied it to be and came 10 hours late, it was the biggest aftershock since February's disaster, leading some to claim that "Moon man" had been vindicated.

Scientists, however, have continued to dismiss Mr Ring, who has gone to ground because of the media attention. Dr Mark Quigley, a lecturer in active tectonics and geomorphology, said: "Vague quotes about dates of 'increased' activity plus or minus several days, without magnitudes, locations, and exact times do not constitute prediction."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... uakes.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Berkland:
Former USGS Geologist Jim Berkland states that this month there is a greater risk of a major quake in North America because 'On the 19th of this month, we're having not only the Full Moon but within an hour, the closest approach of the moon till the year 2016'....you're bringing together the three of the maximum tide raising forces'.
Perhaps the press has been distracted by Libya, etc, and neglected to report this 'major quake in North America'?

Still, if he warned of 'a seismic window between the 19th and the 26th of this month', I suppose there are still a couple of days to go! ;)

But that raises the point I've queried before: the Moon will be at third quarter on the 26th (HeavensAbove: Last quarter: 12:07 Saturday, 26 March), when its tidal influence is least. (Also, it will have moved well away from the perigee distance reached on the 19th.) Why should it trigger earthquakes on the 26th?

Well, we don't have many tall buildings round here, but perhaps I'll have lunch on the top floor of Wetherspoons on Saturday... 8)
 

rev_dino

Administrator
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
409
Location
Denver CO, USA
I believe that he is the chap who often predicts earthquakes in a two week stretch around the full moon. And also a two week stretch around the new moon.

So, basically the entire month, then.
 

Obake

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
61
rynner2 said:
This is an interesting, two-page article on the current state of earthquake prediction science:

Earthquake Prediction: Mission Impossible

http://geology.about.com/od/eq_predicti ... iction.htm

In short, earthquakes are random and chaotic events, and we will need much more geological science before EQ prediction can be on a par with weather prediction.

(There are plenty of links to related material.)

I so often find myself without a dog, so to speak, in these kinds of arguments. I mean, I agree with what all the Smart People in the article and links seem to be saying: earthquake prediction (as in, 'there will be a 6.3 tremor on X fault next week) is something respectable scientists, as opposed to charlatans, think is not only impossible now, but for the foreseeable future.

But (and you knew one was coming) I hope not parsing things too closely, but what the article first says is "After a century of close study, earthquakes look just like random events." [emphasis added] which is far different than earthquakes actually being random occurrences.

The trouble is, I think the author came closer to getting it right at the top of the article, but seems to spend most of it arguing the 'completely random' position.

It would have felt more even-handed if it had mentioned that there have been a few (peer-reviewed) papers suggesting there is a connection between tides and earthquakes
See, for instance:

Cochran, E.S., J.E. Vidale, and S. Tanaka 2004, Earth tides can trigger shallow thrust fault earthquakes, Science, 306, p. 1164-6. link to pdf of article

or

Crockett, R. G. M., G. K. Gillmore, P. S. Phillips, and D. D. Gilbertson ( 2006 ), Tidal synchronicity of the 26 December 2004 Sumatran earthquake and its aftershocks , Geophys. Res. Lett. , 33 LINK to abstract

(Though to be fair, the latter has come under some criticism for its methodology.)

Or take the fact that there have been 16 earthquakes since 1900 to achieve a magnitude of 8.5+ USGS list (by contrast, there have been 71 classified as 8.0-8.4 over the same period).

Of those sixteen, two happened within a three month span in the 20s, seven between 1950-65, and five since Boxing Day 2004. That certainly seems suggestive of a non-randomness operating for the very largest earthquakes. Though I acknowledge the geological record is obviously long enough to account for seeming significance (without actually being so) in a (relatively) small data sample.

But (and this is where I get rubbed the wrong way by that kind of article) there's an odd arrogance some science writing has, where it's not enough to merely say, 'it's been studied it a lot and all we know is how little we know'. There has to be broad, sweeping pronouncements that 'there's definitely no influence by X and anyone who says X is involved is full of shit' .

I know there's great comfort to be had in certitude, but to admit in one breath 'this is a confusing, complicated, chaotic topic we only dimly understand' should really give one pause before speaking with the Voice of Authority with the next.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
'Random' and 'Chaotic' are not the same thing. Chaos Theory is a relatively recent branch of applied mathematics which deals with physical systems, where although the forces acting are known and understood, the calculation of outcomes produce apparently random results. As Wiki says:
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
(We also have an old thread on the subject:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1745 )

Sometimes chaotic systems have a number of parameters which determine the outcome, and it can be that chaotic behaviour only occurs when one or more of the parameters have values within certain limits. Values outside those limits lead to predictable outcomes.

Maybe, when we understand better all the factors involved in EQs, we will be able to better understand whether all EQs are fundamentally chaotic, or whether some will actually become predictable if we can measure all the relevent parameters correctly.
 

Obake

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
61
Rynner, I don't disagree with anything you said, but I'm not sure where one can take from what i wrote that I believe chaos and random are the same thing, I'm well aware they are not. (I'm really not trying to be snarky, but it was you who implied they were the same thing: "in short, earthquakes are random and chaotic events").

In any case, that was an interesting overview, thanks for providing the link. I just wish it had been a bit more of a nuanced, less of a cut-n-dried look at the topic.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
Obake said:
Or take the fact that there have been 16 earthquakes since 1900 to achieve a magnitude of 8.5+ USGS list (by contrast, there have been 71 classified as 8.0-8.4 over the same period).

Of those sixteen, two happened within a three month span in the 20s, seven between 1950-65, and five since Boxing Day 2004. That certainly seems suggestive of a non-randomness operating for the very largest earthquakes. Though I acknowledge the geological record is obviously long enough to account for seeming significance (without actually being so) in a (relatively) small data sample.


I've done a little digging around those 16 greatest hits and here's the moon phase data.

-1. Chile 1960 May 22 - 9.5
New moon - May 25

*** 2. Prince William Sound, Alaska 1964 Mar 28 - 9.2
Full moon - Mar 28

***3. Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004 Dec 26 - 9.1
Full moon - 2004 Dec 26

4. Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan 2011 Mar 11 - 9.0
New moon - March 04

**5. Kamchatka 1952 Nov 4 - 9.0
Full moon - Nov 1

**6. Offshore Maule, Chile 2010 Feb 27 - 8.8
Full moon Feb 28

7. Off the Coast of Ecuador 1906 Jan 31 - 8.8
New moon Jan 24

**8. Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 Feb 04 - 8.7
New moon - Feb 1

**9. Northern Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 Mar 28 - 8.6
Full moon - Mar 25

**10. Assam - Tibet 1950 Aug 15 - 8.6
New moon - Aug 13

-11. Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1957 Mar 09 - 8.6
New moon - Mar 1

**12. Southern Sumatra, Indonesia 2007 Oct 12 - 8.5
New moon - Oct 11

**13. Banda Sea, Indonesia 1938 Feb 01 - 8.5
New moon - Jan 31

**14. Kamchatka 1923 Feb 03 - 8
Full moon - Feb 1

15. Chile-Argentina Border 1922 Nov 11 - 8.5
Full moon - Nov 4

16. Kuril Islands 1963 Oct 13 - 8.5
New moon - Oct 17 12:43

I've put asterisks in to denote proximity to new and full moons and as you can see, 2 (Prince William Sound) and 3 (Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004) were on the very day of a full moon.
** denotes a quake to within 3 days. The next day in the case of 12 and 13.
This leaves the unstarred but you'll notice that 4, 7 and 15 are 7 days after a new or full moon. Remember that 'respected' geologist Berkland specified a 7 day window for a quake event to take place.

Those marked - are outside this window. By one day in the case of 11.

Of course my stats are amateurish and I didn't know what I'd come up with when I started but now it's difficult for me to look at these major events with a view that they're as completely chaotic or random as they're supposed to be. In fact, if we stretch and lean generously to including those that happened the next day, that's a quarter of the 16 biggest quakes on the planet in a century occurring on a New or Full moon.


phases here...

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phases1901.html
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
jimv1 said:
From that link:
The following table gives the date and time (Universal Time) of all phases of the Moon for a period of one century.
Since the EQs mentioned were spread around the globe, the local time and date may well have been further away from New or Full Moon than you estimate, but I don't have the time right now to double check each one for its UT during the EQ.

But we're still left with the elephant in the room:
Remember that 'respected' geologist Berkland specified a 7 day window for a quake event to take place.
It still hasn't been explained why. Why exactly should the moon cause EQs halfway between Full and new Moons, when the tidal influence is least?

Specifically, this forecast of his hasn't come to pass:
Former USGS Geologist Jim Berkland states that this month there is a greater risk of a major quake in North America because 'On the 19th of this month, we're having not only the Full Moon but within an hour, the closest approach of the moon till the year 2016'....you're bringing together the three of the maximum tide raising forces'.
If he misses the mark when all the forces are at a maximum, why should we think just one of them might be so important?

(The third tide-raising effect he refers to is maybe the Spring Equinox, around March 20/21, although strictly speaking it is not: the third effect is the distance of the Sun from the earth. This was a minimum this year on January 3rd.)

His 7 day window is nearly closed - but if the 'Big One' hits California in the next few hours, I may have to eat humble pie!
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
rynner2 said:
Since the EQs mentioned were spread around the globe, the local time and date may well have been further away from New or Full Moon than you estimate, but I don't have the time right now to double check each one for its UT during the EQ.

It's not estimation. Those are the phases of the moon from a NASA site with exact timings on them.
But since you haven't checked, they may also be closer.

According to the data, you'd have to get very bloody local to discount that the majority of the 16 biggest earthquakes occured within a week of a new and full moon.

And don't forget we are talking geological scale here so this is pretty much instant coffee.

And while we're on, I'd thought you would have acknowledged my previous post on a large hit on Burma on thursday.

Burma earthquake: At least 75 people killed
The town of Tachileik and surrounding villages in Shan state appear to have borne the brunt of the quake Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
China-Burma border hit by quake
Country profile: Burma
US and Suu Kyi in Burma aid talks
At least 75 people are reported to have been killed and many more injured when a powerful earthquake struck north-eastern Burma on Thursday.

The magnitude-6.8 quake struck near the Lao and Thai borders, and was felt as far away as the Thai capital Bangkok, and in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi.

The town of Tachileik and surrounding villages in Shan state appear to have borne the brunt of the earthquake.

There are fears the casualties could be much higher.

Burma is ill prepared to deal with natural disasters, says the BBC's Rachel Harvey in Bangkok.

Communication systems and infrastructure are poor and the military government, still in charge until the handover to a new civilian-led administration, tends to limit the flow of information.

It is likely to take some time before a clear picture of the disaster emerges, our correspondent says.

Several hundred buildings collapsed north of the town of Tachileik, in mountains near the border with Thailand.

Local people told the BBC that in the villages of Tarlay and Mong Lin alone more than 60 people had been killed. Roads and bridges have been damaged making affected areas hard to reach.

"We are trying to reach the remote areas," one official told AFP news agency. "The military, police and local authorities are trying to find some people injured in those affected areas but the roads are still closed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12852237

Not totally catastrophic as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but that was due to it occurring in a more isolated area.
If I was to theorise further on the theory, I'd say that it's on time, DESPITE the earlier massive explosive release of stress and energy off Japan recently.

Nitpick as much as you want. I'm still interested in the theory as a casual observer.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
rynner2 said:
But we're still left with the elephant in the room:
Remember that 'respected' geologist Berkland specified a 7 day window for a quake event to take place.
It still hasn't been explained why. Why exactly should the moon cause EQs halfway between Full and new Moons, when the tidal influence is least?


To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Maybe you should stop thinking of the Earth in terms of water and more in terms of molten rock, moving crusts and electromagnetic forces.
I noticed in one of your contributions you 'ironically' pointed out that the Earth causes quakes on the Moon. So can you explain why it would be impossible for it to happen the other way around to some degree?

And from the 16 greatest hits, it's not halfway. It's more or less bang-on the new or full moon to 3 days after in a large number of cases and 8 days at the outside.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
jimv1 said:
And while we're on, I'd thought you would have acknowledged my previous post on a large hit on Burma on thursday.

Burma earthquake: At least 75 people killed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12852237

Not totally catastrophic as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but that was due to it occurring in a more isolated area.
If I was to theorise further on the theory, I'd say that it's on time, DESPITE the earlier massive explosive release of stress and energy off Japan recently.
I myself posted about the Burma quake on the main Earthquakes thread, since I didn't see its relevence to this one.

As for
If I was to theorise further on the theory, I'd say that it's on time...
Well, this is what bothers me - what is the theory? A statement that EQs are more probable during certain periods is not a theory unless backed up by good statistics or good physical theory, neither of which seem to apply to Berkland's ideas. (Otherwise, why do mainstream geologists still reject his ideas?)
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,876
rynner2 said:
I myself posted about the Burma quake on the main Earthquakes thread, since I didn't see its relevence to this one.

Yeah. Right. Yeah.
You mean I've been going on about this thing about major earthquakes happening around 6 days after a full moon and you didn't post the Burma quake on this thread?

I see.

Hmmmm. 'Earthquakes' thread - I should have a look at that.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,601
jimv1 said:
I noticed in one of your contributions you 'ironically' pointed out that the Earth causes quakes on the Moon. So can you explain why it would be impossible for it to happen the other way around to some degree?
It's a question of scale - the Moon's mass is only 0.0123 times that of the Earth.

This is why the Earth has locked the Moon's rotation to its period around the Earth, while the Moon has only slightly slowed the rotation of Earth.
(Otherwise our days might be a month long! And when the Moon and Earth do become tidally locked, the month(=day) will be far longer than it is now.)
 
Top