Volcano earthquake report for Monday, 29 Jun 2020
Monday Jun 29, 2020 21:50 PM | BY: EARTHQUAKEMONITOR
World map showing volcanoes with shallow (less than 20 km) earthquakes within 20 km radius during the past 24 hours on 29 Jun 2020 Number in brackets indicate nr of quakes.Quakes detected near: Askja (4 quakes between mag 0.8-1.5), Canlaon (1 quake mag 2.5), Clear Lake (25 quakes between mag 0.3-2.2), Coso (5 quakes between mag 0.6-1.2), Etna (2 quakes between mag 1.1-1.4), Grímsnes (1 quake mag 1.0)
Kilauea (1 quake mag 1.9), Kolbeinsey Ridge (1 quake mag 1.3), Krísuvík (3 quakes between mag 0.5-2.5), Makushin (14 quakes between mag 0.6-3.7), Mammoth Mountain (3 quakes between mag 0.4-1.2), Marapi (2 quakes between mag 3.0-4.4), Masaya (2 quakes between mag 2.3-2.4), Reykjanes (18 quakes between mag 0.1-1.6), Ruapehu (1 quake mag 1.2), Salton Buttes (3 quakes between mag 0.9-3.7), Sousaki (1 quake mag 1.9), Tenerife (7 quakes between mag 0.1-1.2), Ubehebe Craters (1 quake mag 1.0), Vesuvius (1 quake mag 1.7) (updated 21h50)
Note: Earthquakes within 20 km from and at depths less than 20 km under active volcanoes are reported. The list is not complete because many volcanoes are not monitored and/or seismic data in high resolution is not available publicly.
Volcanoes with recent earthquakes above magnitude 2 or more than 10 quakes are listed below:
Canlaon volcano (Central Philippines): magnitude 2.5 earthquake
A magnitude 2.5 earthquake occurred at the volcano 17 hours ago. The quake, which might be volcanic in origin, was located at a depth of 10.0 km depth at 5 km distance NW from the volcano.
M 2.5 quake: 016 km N 75° E of La Carlota City (Negros Occidental) (Philippines) on Mon, 29 Jun 05h03 (5 km NW) – 17 hours ago
All earthquakes at Canlaon
Clear Lake volcano (California): 25 earthquakes up to magnitude 2.2
Possible earthquake swarm: 25 earthquakes occurred near (under) the volcano during 19 hours, the last being recorded quake 3 hours ago. Hypocenter depths ranged between 3.2 and 0.3 km.
Earthquake details: (only 5 largest)
M 2.2 quake: 4km W of Cobb, CA (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 04h36 (16 km S) – 18 hours ago
M 1.9 quake: 27 km N of Lowman, Idaho (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 17h26 (16 km SW) – 5 hours ago
M 1.6 quake: 7km NW of The Geysers, CA (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 04h00 (18 km S) – 18 hours ago
M 1.4 quake: 7km WNW of The Geysers, CA (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 03h33 (18 km S) – 19 hours ago
M 1.2 quake: 8km NW of The Geysers, CA (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 17h25 (16 km S) – 5 hours ago
All earthquakes at Clear Lake
Krísuvík volcano (Iceland): 3 earthquakes up to magnitude 2.5
3 earthquakes occurred near (under) the volcano during 3 hours, the last being recorded quake 17 hours ago. Hypocenter depths ranged between 4.9 and 3.7 km.
M 2.5 quake: 1.0 km W of Krýsuvík (Iceland) on Mon, 29 Jun 04h25 (4 km S) – 18 hours ago
M 1.0 quake: 1.3 km NW of Krýsuvík (Iceland) on Mon, 29 Jun 01h19 (4 km SSW) – 21 hours ago
M 0.5 quake: 1.4 km NW of Krýsuvík (Iceland) on Mon, 29 Jun 01h19 (4 km SSW) – 21 hours ago
All earthquakes at Krísuvík
Makushin volcano (Aleutian Islands): 14 earthquakes up to magnitude 3.7
Possible earthquake swarm: 14 earthquakes occurred near (under) the volcano during 18 hours, the last being recorded quake 3 hours ago. Hypocenter depths ranged between 10.0 and 1.1 km.
Earthquake details: (only 5 largest)
M 3.7 quake: 15 km WSW of Unalaska, Alaska (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 02h02 (12 km ESE) – 20 hours ago
M 3.0 quake: 15 km W of Dutch Harbor, Alaska (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 00h53 (10 km E) – 21 hours ago
M 1.3 quake: 15 km WSW of Dutch Harbor, Alaska (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 09h15 (11 km E) – 13 hours ago
M 1.0 quake: 15 km WSW of Dutch Harbor, Alaska (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 05h51 (11 km ESE) – 16 hours ago
M 0.9 quake: 15 km WSW of Dutch Harbor, Alaska (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 18h34 (11 km ESE) – 3 hours 34 minutes ago
All earthquakes at Makushin
Marapi volcano (Sumatra): 2 earthquakes up to magnitude 4.4
2 earthquakes occurred near (under) the volcano during 2 hours, the last being recorded quake 4 hours ago. Hypocenter depths ranged between 10.0 and 10.0 km.
M 4.4 quake: Southern Sumatra, Indonesia on Mon, 29 Jun 17h40 (6 km SSW) – 4 hours ago
M 3.0 quake: Southern Sumatra, Indonesia on Mon, 29 Jun 15h27 (9 km SSE) – 7 hours ago
All earthquakes at Marapi
Masaya volcano (Nicaragua): 2 earthquakes up to magnitude 2.4
2 earthquakes occurred near (under) the volcano during 8 minutes, the last being recorded quake 7 hours ago. Hypocenter depths ranged between 7.0 and 4.0 km.
M 2.4 quake: 5 Km al norte de Volcán Masaya, Nicaragua on Mon, 29 Jun 14h23 (5 km NNE) – 8 hours ago
M 2.3 quake: 2 Km al norte de Volcán Masaya, Nicaragua on Mon, 29 Jun 14h30 (5 km N) – 8 hours ago
All earthquakes at Masaya
Reykjanes volcano (Iceland): 18 earthquakes up to magnitude 1.6
Possible earthquake swarm: 18 earthquakes occurred near (under) the volcano during 15 hours, the last being recorded quake 9 hours ago. Hypocenter depths ranged between 5.9 and 3.1 km.
Earthquake details: (only 5 largest)
M 1.6 quake: 3.8 km NNE of Grindavík (Iceland) on Mon, 29 Jun 12h29 (6 km WSW) – 10 hours ago
M 1.6 quake: 3.7 km NNE of Grindavík (Iceland) on Mon, 29 Jun 12h01 (6 km WSW) – 10 hours ago
M 1.4 quake: 0.8 km NE of Reykjanestá (Iceland) on Mon, 29 Jun 06h02 (13 km SE) – 16 hours ago
M 1.3 quake: 3.8 km NNE of Grindavík (Iceland) on Mon, 29 Jun 12h05 (6 km WSW) – 10 hours ago
M 1.3 quake: 4.1 km NNE of Grindavík (Iceland) on Mon, 29 Jun 12h43 (6 km WSW) – 9 hours ago
All earthquakes at Reykjanes
Salton Buttes volcano (California): 3 earthquakes up to magnitude 3.7
3 earthquakes occurred near (under) the volcano during 23 hours, the last being recorded quake 44 minutes ago. Hypocenter depths ranged between 6.8 and 2.7 km.
M 3.7 quake: 13km SSE of Bombay Beach, CA (USA) on Sun, 28 Jun 22h13 (8 km NNW) – 24 hours ago
M 1.9 quake: 14km W of Niland, CA (USA) on Sun, 28 Jun 22h17 (6 km NNW) – 24 hours ago
M 0.9 quake: 10km WNW of Calipatria, CA (USA) on Mon, 29 Jun 21h06 (5 km S) – 1 hour 2 minutes ago
All earthquakes at Salton Buttes
Earthquake report world-wide for Monday, 29 June 2020
Monday Jun 29, 2020 21:20 PM | BY: EARTHQUAKEMONITOR
World map showing earthquakes above magnitude 3 during the past 24 hours on 29 Jun 2020
Summary: 214 quakes M2+, 93 quakes M3+, 27 quakes M4+, 3 quakes M5+ (337 total)
This report is being updated every hour.
Magnitude 2+: 214 earthquakes
Magnitude 3+: 93 earthquakes
Magnitude 4+: 27 earthquakes
Magnitude 5+: 3 earthquakes
Magnitude 6+: none
Magnitude 7+: none
Magnitude 8+: none
Magnitude 9+: noneTotal seismic energy estimate: 4.4*10^13 J (12.3 GWh / 10570 tons of TNT / 0.7 atomic bombs equivalent) [learn more]
List of 10 largest earthquakes in the world (past 24 hours):
#1: M 5.7 quake: Ascension Island Region on Mon, 29 Jun 19h40 – 2 hours 25 minutes ago
#2: M 5.3 quake: Off East Coast of Honshu, Japan on Mon, 29 Jun 09h52 – 12 hours ago
#3: M 5.0 quake: 45 Km al sur de Olivo Civil, Panamá (Panama) on Mon, 29 Jun 09h13 – 13 hours ago
#4: M 4.9 quake: 199 km E of Hihifo, Tonga (Samoa) on Mon, 29 Jun 08h56 – 13 hours ago
#5: M 4.9 quake: Tonga Region on Mon, 29 Jun 20h22 – 1 hour 43 minutes ago
#6: M 4.8 quake: South of Panama on Mon, 29 Jun 09h13
#7: M 4.8 quake: Southeast of Honshu, Japan on Mon, 29 Jun 09h54 – 12 hours ago
#8: M 4.8 quake: New Zealand on Mon, 29 Jun 15h49 – 6 hours ago
#9: M 4.7 quake: Southwestern Ryukyu Isl., Japan on Mon, 29 Jun 02h37 – 19 hours ago
#10: M 4.7 quake: Taiwan on Mon, 29 Jun 05h08 – 17 hours ago
Number of quakes and energy released vs time
Number of quakes and energy released vs magnitude
Magnitude of quakes and energy released vs time
Phys.org has published an article, misleadingly titled, “How increased flooding due to climate change impacts waterways across U.S,” that is among the top Google News search results today for “climate change.” The article discusses a paper published in the journal Nature Communications. In fact, the Nature Communications paper does not say climate change is causing increased flooding. Indeed, it does not really discuss climate change at all. Instead, it examines a little discussed aspect of flood events: floods deliver benefits to affected areas as well as imposing costs.
After the Nature Communications study was published, Phys.org interviewed the lead author, Durelle Scott, an associate professor of Biological Systems Engineering affiliate of the Global Change Center at Virginia Tech. Scott told Phys.org, “The big picture is that flooding across the world is increasing with climate change, but not all flooding is bad and catastrophic,” but the study itself doesn’t say floods are getting worse due to climate change. Even Scott’s statement is equivocal. It indicates increased flooding is coincident with climate change, not that it is being caused by it. Nor does Scott’s paper conduct any specific analysis regarding flooding and climate change.
Among scientists who have actually studied the issue, even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have found no evidence of increasing flooding frequency or severity as the climate has modestly warmed.
Indeed, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Floods, IPCC admits having “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods, going so far as to say it has “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes—in other words, it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe.
Also, a 2017 study in the Journal of Hydrology discussing climate impact on flooding for the USA and Europe, concluded “… the number of significant trends [concerning floods] was about the number expected due to chance alone,” and “[c]hanges in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.”
Even if there were a climate-change impact on flooding, Scott’s new study does not address or make any new findings on the topic. Nevertheless, Phys.org asserts the opposite, driven by aggressive alarmism, clickbait deception, or both.
While some increased flooding has occurred, scientists report changes in land use are the main factor. As human societies have urbanized, this urbanization has impacted streamflow and water drainage. Environmental laws and regulations have contributed to this, as well. For example, recent widespread flooding across parts of the United Kingdom were shown to be tied to European Union environmental regulations preventing the dredging, deepening and on occasion widening and building embankments along rivers. Also contributing to flooding events are the conversion of floodplains and wetlands to urban development; the increase in impervious surfaces, leading to ever greater runoff during storms; the rapid draining of shallow aquifers; stream channelization; land subsidence; and government policies subsidizing and otherwise encouraging below-market flood insurance policies in flood-prone areas.
In short, scientists report no evidence of climate change increasing the frequency or severity of floods. Scientists report that any increase in flooding in recent decades is due instead to human land-use changes. The fact that Phys.org claims a link between floods and climate change, when the actual study does not even address the topic, is shameful although not surprising. That is after all, similar to how alarmists produce the faux 97 percent consensus.
The post Phys.org Busted – Study Asserts NO Link Between Flooding and Climate Change appeared first on Climate Realism.
National Academies of Science should speak out against climate alarmism, not support it. This is the major message in a recent letter from Professor Guus Berkhout, president of CLINTEL, to the new head of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The integrity of science is at stake.
This letter is a model for how all alarmist National Academies should be addressed. For example, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is painfully alarmist. Even worse, NAS has been joined in promoting alarmism by its two siblings, the National Academies of Engineering and Medicine. The fact that these Academies have become a servant of supranational political organizations such as IPCC shows how serious the crisis in climate science really is.
The Netherlands Academy is called KNAW, from its Dutch name. KNAW was established in 1808 as an advisory body to the government, a task it still performs today. NAS was established by Congress in 1868. Both NAS and KNAW derive their authority from their high profile members, rigorously selected top scientists from a large range of scientific fields. Professor Berkhout is a member of KNAW.
The letter is addressed to Prof. Dr. Ineke Sluiter, President of KNAW. It begins with a clear statement of the issue:
“I am addressing you in your capacity as the new President of the KNAW because the climate issue is escalating. The IPCC and the associated activist climate movement have become highly politicised. Sceptical scientists are being silenced. As an IPCC expert reviewer, I critically looked at the latest draft climate report. My conclusion is that there is little evidence of any intent to discover the objective scientific truth.
Though IPCC’s doomsday scenarios are far from representative of reality, they play an important role in government climate policy. Only courageous individuals dare to point out that the predictions of the IPCC’s computer models of climate have not come to pass, in that contemporary measurements contradict them. IPCC’s confidence in its own models does not match the real-world outturn. In the past, scientific societies such as ours would have sounded the alarm. (Emphasis added.)
In your interview with Elsevier Weekblad (6 June 2020) you say: “Dutch science should be proud of itself” and, a little later, “A hallmark of high-quality research must be a wide variety of viewpoints – fewer dogmas, more viewpoints.” I agree. Unfortunately, your observations do not seem to apply to climate science. There, diversity is suppressed and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) dogma is promoted. That is why I am writing to you.”
After discussing the well known problems with the IPCC science, Professor Berkhout states his case:
“Why do scientific institutions not warn society that all these climate-change doom and gloom scenarios have little or no scientific justification? I know that there are many scientists around the world who doubt or disagree with the IPCC’s claims. I also know from my own experience and from correspondence with colleagues that there is much pressure on researchers to conform to what we are told is the climate “consensus”. But the history of science shows time and again that new insights do not come from followers but from critical thinkers. For valid new insights, measurements trump models.
The KNAW, as the guardian of science, must surely take action now. The more governments invest in expensive climate policies in the name of climate science, the more difficult it becomes to point out that climate science in its present state falls a long way short of providing any justification for such policies. There are more and more indications that things are not right. If the scientific community waits for the dam to burst, the damage to science will be enormous. Society will then rightly ask itself the question: why were the Academies of Sciences silent? Surely there has been enough warning from scientific critics of the official position?
The KNAW must, of course, stay clear of politics and focus on excellence in finding the truth. But I repeat that the KNAW is also the guardian of science. In climate policy in particular, science is abused on a global scale. How can one plausibly state, on such a highly complex subject as the Earth’s climate, that “the science is settled”? That is not excellence: it is stupidity.”
There is a lot more and the letter ends with a specific proposal from CLINTEL:
“I propose to organise an international open blue-team/red-team meeting together with the KNAW, in which both teams can present their scientific views†. These discussions could be the start of a new era in climate science. Audiatur et altera pars.”
The US National Academy of Sciences is a lot worse than KNAW in this regard. Not only does NAS not speak out against the anti-scientific climate movement, it openly supports it. I know there are skeptical members of NAS, probably many. They need to speak out, just as Professor Berkhout has done.
Nothing less than the integrity of science is at stake. Failure to acknowledge the scientific climate change debate is making science look like a political tool. This can only turn out badly for science.
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.
via Watts Up With That?
June 29, 2020 at 04:09PM
Cheap, abundant, reliable energy for all!
The dangerous green lie