
Can one earthquake trigger another on the other side of the world? - feross
https://will-r-chase.github.io/eq_bw/
======
reaperducer
Earthquakes can do strange things.

When there are earthquakes in Japan, the water sloshes in Devil's Hole in
Death Valley, California.

The Earth is more amazing than we know.

~~~
s1artibartfast
I would like to learn more. Do you have a source?

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Since i found this hard to believe too, i searched for the location, clicked
through to wikipedia from the results

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Hole#cite_note-
NPS-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Hole#cite_note-NPS-1)

and from there to the cited note

[2] [https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/devils-
hole.htm](https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/devils-hole.htm)

Strange planet we live on!

~~~
s1artibartfast
Thanks!

------
lolc
Interesting analysis! Though I wonder how easy it is to go fishing for
correlation when you can choose the cutoff time. Are the correlations still
comparably strong when the analysis is done with two days or four days?

Also I'm not sure how "relative risk" translates to absolute risk. Would a
place with already high risk (say one in twenty years) see the doubling of
absolute risk (one in ten years) in the days following an earthquake on the
other side of the globe? (I know, the answer is probably that there is
disagreement over this.)

> Since the seismic waves converge at the antipode, this means that regions
> directly opposite a large mainshock should be on high alert for at least
> three days, after which the relative risk reduces.

A doubling of risk does not change the danger in ways that should let us
change our behavior. If it's dangerous at 2 times the rate it's dangerous at
the normal rate too. The three days to be spent on "high alert" stand against
just six days on "normal alert" with the same risk of a strike.

------
rolltiide
I'm glad they are trying to quantify this exactly, but shouldn't this already
have been default understanding?

I see flurries of earthquakes around the ring of fire specifically because it
is one gigantic plate! if one side of it moves a tiny bit, the other side has
been displaced a tiny bit, so anything on top of it is moving also

~~~
mutagen
At the scale of the Pacific Plate it isn't one rigid piece but more of a soft
plastic plate. Sure, movement in one area changes stress in other boundaries
but there are quite a few more inputs and outputs like the diverging
boundaries spanning the east side of the Pacific Plate (Juan de Fuca, Explorer
Ridge, Galapagos Rise, East Pacific Ridge, Pacific Antarctic Ridge are a few).
Some of these are more responsible for the Ring of Fire than the Pacific Plate
boundaries: the other end of the Juan de Fuca plate is the Cascadia Subduction
Zone and the Nazca Plate as part of the Andean orogeny to name two.

Significant earthquakes can be produced by motion that isn't aligned with the
general east to west movement of the Pacific Plate. Fault structures around
the plate boundaries, fault complexes associated with the bordering plates
(North America, South American, Antarctic, etc), and localized stress
associated with subduction and volcanoes all produce large earthquakes. This
research includes at least one of these quakes (Landers).

------
205guy
I agree with others saying it seems plausible, and almost self-evident. Didn't
they tell us that the Earth rang like a bell after the big Indonesian and
Japanese earthquakes (where "they" are scientists being interpreted by
journalists). All that dissipated energy can impact other faults. This seemed
like a popularization of the recent science behind it.

Edited to add: there is also the speculation that the massive volcanism of the
Deccan Traps in India were triggered by the Chicxulub impact event, because
they were antipodal and roughly the same time.
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps)]

My issue with the content is that it's not clear whether the author is a
scientist, nor whether all statements are based on scientific articles. It
starts off sounding like popularizing established science, but then makes some
claims without giving sources, even informal. For example, the graphic with
the "\+ pattern" says it is based on analysis, but doesn't say whose. Is it
from a scientific article, some other article or the author's own speculation,
any would be fine if it were explained. There is a "Methods" section at the
end, but it isn't clear from that either: " The Sumatra data was limited to
M5.5+ earthquakes, and was collected worldwide." There's a reason your English
teacher told you not to use the passive voice!

In general I found the graphics and animations to be clear and informative,
and the multi-media aspect well done. But there were some annoying
distractions: first, the vertically scrolling text sometimes covered the key
part of the graphic, like I scrolled past the right location without knowing
where it was. There needs to be "sticky" places where the scrolling stops to
present the next piece of information.

More critically, when the dots representing the CA quakes are moved from the
map to the timeline, they loose their size. Since the whole point is to count
significant quakes over time, this is a net loss of understanding and source
of confusion. The fact that the one key 5.5 quake later has to be highlighted
(and I almost missed it in the scrolling), shows how important it would be to
keep the size. And here the argument is weak because the 5.5 quake was nearby
and the next day, so not really different from an aftershock--it's like the
change of graphic is used to hide the weakness of the argument.

------
fit2rule
I was in Oakland, I was in LA. I have resolved to never again live in quake
country.

The Northridge aftershocks were the worst. 3 days of on-the-edge terror.

~~~
lostlogin
The aftershocks from the Christchurch earthquake had a very marked effect on
those that lived there and m I any left. The number of aftershocks is
incredible with 20,000+ mentioned in one of the links below, and they are
still happening nearly a decade later according to a quick scan of Geonet.
[https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/11000-aftershocks-
christ...](https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/11000-aftershocks-christchurch-
quake)

[https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/christchurch-
aftershocks...](https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/christchurch-aftershocks-
normal-seven-years-later)

[https://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/weak](https://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/weak)

------
ehutch79
Yes.

Problem solved, you can send me the remainder of your research grants now.

------
dghughes
I think many people think about it. I've seen earthquakes then see another
soon after but in another part of the world. It makes you think there must be
some influence.

~~~
cardiffspaceman
Psychics often take advantage of the fact that earthquakes are numerous, so
they can successfully predict one if they are only a little vague:

Major earthquakes, greater than magnitude 7, happen more than once per month.

"Great earthquakes", magnitude 8 and higher, occur about once a year.

Source:

[https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-
sheet/how_often_do_eart...](https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-
sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur)

