This is interesting:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-chile-earthquakes,0,2667957.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

...expanding on the AP news story, they are
concerned about the salmon fisheries that are in the zone, and the
Chilean Navy is working with the companies to plan emergency
evacuation when and if needed.

Also, the scientists are relocating their equipment closer to the zone.
(> They do expect stronger earthquakes.. apparently they)
feel that because it is a relatively small amount of magma coming up,
the eventual eruption should not be powerful enough to threaten the
two closest communities

I wonder about that a bit -- wouldn't the size of the magma determine
the length of the eventual eruption rather than its intensity?

The intensity, explosiveness, and so forth would depend on the chemical
makeup of this particular batch of magma, and there's no way they can
tell that now, is there?

Belba Grubb wrote:
This is interesting:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-chile-earthquakes...

...expanding on the AP news story, they are
concerned about the salmon fisheries that are in the zone, and the
Chilean Navy is working with the companies to plan emergency
evacuation when and if needed.

Also, the scientists are relocating their equipment closer to the zone.

(> They do expect stronger earthquakes.. apparently they)

feel that because it is a relatively small amount of magma coming up,
the eventual eruption should not be powerful enough to threaten the
two closest communities

I wonder about that a bit -- wouldn't the size of the magma determine
the length of the eventual eruption rather than its intensity?

The intensity, explosiveness, and so forth would depend on the chemical
makeup of this particular batch of magma, and there's no way they can
tell that now, is there?

There was a series of small shocks on the 27th in Puerto Rico, all
within one hour of each other:

2.5 2007/01/27 01:26 18 -66 Puerto Rico
2.7 2007/01/27 01:18 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.8 2007/01/27 01:14 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.5 2007/01/27 01:10 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.6 2007/01/27 01:09 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.7 2007/01/27 01:08 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.8 2007/01/27 00:51 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.5 2007/01/27 00:50 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.8 2007/01/27 00:48 19 -65 Puerto Rico
3.5 2007/01/27 00:47 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.5 2007/01/27 00:45 19 -65 Puerto Rico
2.9 2007/01/27 00:44 19 -65 Puerto Rico

Obviously no swarms would appear with small quakes in Chile on that
site (NEIC) but I couldn't find the 4+ Mag one either. You will note
that there were a couple of extra tropical storms about that date.
One of them (at least) will be found to have occurred within an
harmonic distance of a mutliple of some 35 degrees of longitude from
the region.

(From the regions involved may encompass all anomalies.)

The MetO will post data on these storms shortly before the end of
February. Their alacrity is matched only by their accuracy though.* So
be prepared for disappointment.

*Actually this concerns botched updates to their servers, with past
data scrambled or misplaced in the archives. Most such UK government
departments are covered by the Official Secrets Act; so very little
information about cockups is ever discussed.

The University of Chile may have its "sismógrafos" online somewhere,
but I couldn't find them with a quick search today. The largest of
the swarm did make the NEIC list: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/
neic_xxce.html We'll probably be seeing more of these at NEIC as the
magma gets closer to the surface. I wonder how strong those will be.

Meanwhile, in nearby Aysén and Chacabuco, people are scared:
http://www.diarioaysen.cl/noticias1.php?id=77 Good thing it's
midsummer out there, and they won't suffer from winter cold outdoors,
but that far south, it's never going to be really balmy, and
hypothermia on the rainier, more windy days is not out of the
question: http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/85862.html

Tough situation. And when the magma does break through, for the
reasons I mentioned above, I wonder if the eruption will be as small
as they expect.

Isn't there some data somewhere that indicates that subterranean
events of all sorts seem to be linked to microbial activity? It is
rewriting the text books again apparently. I recall a TV programme
showing that the caverns in a desert somewhere have probably been
excavated by them as there is little chance it was caused by water
eroding it.

It's also more than likely true that the volcanic activity on earth is
liable to be caused by microbes. Just a wild guess of course. Why not
though? Suppose there are some particularly attracted to sulphur or
it's ores.

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Isn't there some data somewhere that indicates that subterranean
events of all sorts seem to be linked to microbial activity? It is
rewriting the text books again apparently. I recall a TV programme
showing that the caverns in a desert somewhere have probably been
excavated by them as there is little chance it was caused by water
eroding it.

No. Not microbial activity alone. Even microbes need water to live.

It's also more than likely true that the volcanic activity on earth is
liable to be caused by microbes. Just a wild guess of course. Why not
though? Suppose there are some particularly attracted to sulphur or
it's ores.

That is a scary thought. Microbes able to survive lava baths.

Jo Schaper wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

Isn't there some data somewhere that indicates that subterranean
events of all sorts seem to be linked to microbial activity? It is
rewriting the text books again apparently. I recall a TV programme
showing that the caverns in a desert somewhere have probably been
excavated by them as there is little chance it was caused by water
eroding it.

No. Not microbial activity alone. Even microbes need water to live.

It's also more than likely true that the volcanic activity on earth is
liable to be caused by microbes. Just a wild guess of course. Why not
though? Suppose there are some particularly attracted to sulphur or
it's ores.

That is a scary thought. Microbes able to survive lava baths.

Not quite.

Microbes (and not necessarily microbes too neither) able to CAUSE
lava. Of course it is one thing to set the process in motion it is
another thing entirely to be able to survive the cataclysm. But some
microbes do exist in very hot, very poisonous situations.

I am not saying that it is what I believe. Just that the impossible to
comprehend should not be ruled out.

Consider the sea sponge. Able to recompose itself after being put
through a blender, a couple of different species put in together can
sort themselves out.
At least that is what I heard was the correct answer to such a strange
set of laws of creation discussed on a quiz show recently.

Other life forms have survived blasting with X-rays and cooking in
microwave ovens. Or so I have been led to believe.

I bet it took a lot
of convincing to get the backing for nuclear research in the early
'40's.

The concept was so alien then but we take it for granted now
even though it is all still very much a secretive thing.

Who really is the kook and who are the more circumspect of us?

You are the kook, stilling thinking that your local weather is the
cause of equakes across the globe.

"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:0od3s2thainpo8fmpevucaghq3bkifmup1@4ax.com...

You are the kook, stilling thinking that your local weather is the
cause of equakes across the globe.

That's the most entertaining part - that there's something uniquely special
ABOUT THE WEATHER WHERE HE HAPPENS TO BE that is connected with global
earthquakes.

Reminds me of the classic sci.geo.earthquakes kook from the late 90s that
was ABSOLUTELY convinced that there was a strong connection with earthquakes
all over the place and - I kid you not - whether there was dew on his lawn
in the morning.

Back during the last set of big swarms at Long Valley in the later 1990s,
who was it on the geo groups who was convinced the whole place was about to
blow and the USGS was involved in a massive coverup?

In case anyone is keeping track, there was a Mercalli III felt in the
area today, and Mercalli grades IV and V on, I think, the 30th. ONEMI
reported the Mercalli results rather than magnitudes.

And I still wonder, what has the most effect in this particular area
and situation, on how strong the eruption will be: the amount of
available magma or its chemical make-up.

Any idea what sort of rock the magma is pushing through? Passing
through limestone might make the lava more fluid or explosive. Mt
Etna once had this effect IIRC, a large amount of limestone was eaten
by the magma, the result was explosive and more fluid lava, than
prior to the ingestion of the limestone.