What's the interest level in M6+ seismic events based on response rates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter davenn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2017 Events
AI Thread Summary
Recent seismic activity includes two significant events: a magnitude 6.3 earthquake located 36 km SSW of Putre, Chile, and a magnitude 6.7 event in the Bouvet Island region. The P-wave arrival times for these events were approximately 0652 UT for the Chile event and 1907 UT for the Bouvet Island event. The Chilean event occurs in a highly active seismic zone where larger quakes (M7 and M8) are common due to the interaction of the Nazca and South American tectonic plates. In contrast, the Bouvet Island region, while on a plate boundary, is less seismically active. The discussion highlights the uncertainty in predicting future seismic activity, noting that while some events may serve as foreshocks to larger quakes, this can only be confirmed in hindsight. The conversation reflects a broader interest in seismic events and the complexities of earthquake prediction.
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2024 Award
Messages
9,699
Reaction score
11,481
another couple of M6 events from my seismograph

M 6.3 - 36km SSW of Putre, Chile

M 6.7 - Bouvet Island region

on my seismogram below,
the P arrival for the M6.3, Chile event is approx 0652UT
the P arrival for the M6.7, Bouvet Is event is approx 1907UT

zhi.gif
cheers
Dave
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Is there any significance to these events? Is there some future event expected now that you've seen these two?
 
jedishrfu said:
Is there any significance to these events?

Not particularly, they are just part of ongoing activity world wide. The avg is around 2-3 x M6-6.9 events a week
The M 6.3 in nthrn Chile is in a very seismically active region ( the Nazca and South American plates) that sees regular M 7's and M8's.

The M6.7 from Bouvet Is region ( southern Atlantic), tho on a plate boundary, isn't so much of an active area. Go to the west 2000km and
you get to the South Sandwich Islands region where the activity is quite high.
jedishrfu said:
Is there some future event expected now that you've seen these two?

Ah hah, that's the $6 million question :wink: We never know if it's a foreshock to a much bigger event or just a stand-alone event
There's examples of both in the seismic records

eg ... the Japan 2011 M9 event ... it had 3 significant foreshocks
Mar 9, M7.2 followed by 3 x M6.x events then Mar 11 the M9 shock

i-18a4129bbe17932aeb20701709c8e8d2-Magnitudes-thumb-600x480-62555.png


One could say ( and rightfully so) that the 3 x events were just aftershocks of the M7 main shock.
But what makes them all foreshocks of the M9 event is their close association to the M9 both in location and in time

The big problem is, we never know that they were foreshocks, or not, till after the fact
As they say, "Hindsight has 20/20 vision" :wink:Dave
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
Thanks Dave. I always like your posts on these events and your excellent explanations.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
jedishrfu said:
Thanks Dave. I always like your posts on these events and your excellent explanations.

Thankyou for the encouragement
so few of the posts get responses, so I'm never sure how big an "interested audience" there is on the subject
But I just keep posting anyway. :biggrin:
Greg Bernhardt once told me "You have a unique perspective on the subject" :smile:Dave

EDIT ... will reword the line above ... So few...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
Hello, I’m currently writing a series of essays on Pangaea, continental drift, and Earth’s geological cycles. While working on my research, I’ve come across some inconsistencies in the existing theories — for example, why the main pressure seems to have been concentrated in the northern polar regions. So I’m curious: is there any data or evidence suggesting that an external cosmic body (an asteroid, comet, or another massive object) could have influenced Earth’s geology in the distant...
On August 10, 2025, there was a massive landslide on the eastern side of Tracy Arm fjord. Although some sources mention 1000 ft tsunami, that height represents the run-up on the sides of the fjord. Technically it was a seiche. Early View of Tracy Arm Landslide Features Tsunami-causing slide was largest in decade, earthquake center finds https://www.gi.alaska.edu/news/tsunami-causing-slide-was-largest-decade-earthquake-center-finds...
Back
Top