The news networks are concentrating on the tsunami aspect (unlikely IMHO) rather than the real story - Hawaii may be getting another active volcano. Here's the scoop...

the earthquake was at 1:07 EST, lasting somewhere between 30secs and 1minute. mag 6.3 on the richter scale. at least one aftershock.

cnn news report: (there's not much there)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/15/haw...ake/index.html

the news nets are predicatably more interested in tsunami warnings than volcano warnings. i.e. they show a typical understanding of the situation (none at all).


USGS earthquake map
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/....-157.-155.php

here's the list:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...7.-155_eqs.php

wikipedia article on Hualalai (note the mention of the fault line on N50W
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualalai

note the last bit:
"In 1929, however, an intense swarm of earthquakes lasting more than a month was most likely caused by magma rising to near the surface. For these reasons, Hualālai is considered a potentially dangerous volcano that is likely to erupt again sometime in the next 100 years (USGS)."

a small map of Hawai'i's volcanoes.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/us...nt=maps#hawaii


so far, no serious injuries reported, but communications are down in several places. So it's very possible that will change.

John

PS: feel free to eventually migrate this to General Science - i only put it here to give it max. exposure as a breaking story.

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

They've indicated that they had a nice swarm of aftershocks in the 5 range following the first one. The place is a bit of a mess, but overall doesn't look like it had too much structural damage to a lot of buildings. Some roads might be out for a few days, but this one looks like it let'em off pretty easy considering what some 6.X quakes have done in the past.

USGS map

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

I think, based on its location, it's unlikely to be a new major volcano. The island chain isn't moving in the direction that would require.

CNN either needs to stop making its meteorologist do earthquake coverage or send him to a community college geology class!

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I just heard the same think on CNN, that they don't believe it is directly related to magma movement or a volcano, and so is actually a relatively rare event for Hawaii.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

i think you're both missing the point. it is not necessary for a new volcano to form - there's one there already! one which erupted about 200 years ago. considering that mt. st. helens eruption previous to 1980 started in 1800, i don't think that 200 years is enough to say it's dormant or extinct.

as for CNN, they make a living out of missing the point.

John

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

It could be a dormant volcano that's itching to become active though, as per hewhocaves's OP. That would be "new" in the sense that it is different from the one (Kilauea) that has been erupting for the past couple of decades.

How many earthquakes have there been there since the last eruption?

Edit: Wait. I'm on the Net. Let's see... 1801 for the last eruption... Earthquake search, 50 km radius, significant US quakes database...

A bunch. So is this quake more likely to signal an eruption than all those quakes that didn't?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Not quite.

The quake was close to the south kohala coast.

The volcano you are referring to is Hualalai. The quake was not under Hualalai, and in fact was 39 KM deep, besides being much farther north.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Good point.

Deep quakes like this one, that are not associated with magma movement, are probably due to the mass of the Islands sitting on top of the Pacific Plate -- causing it to settle.

The Big Island is composed of 5 volcanoes, one of which is Mauna Loa which is the most massive mountain on Earth.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Except that it wasn't in a location where magma would be moving upwards.

And it wasn't a harmonic tremor that would indicate magma movement.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

The first aftershock was (at 4pm) listed as 4.8 km below the surface. that's not shallow?? *sigh* But that's appaarantly been changed.
Note: I'm glad I rechecked the data - they've revised that depth to being 18.9 km, which is a considerable revision! Not sure why they were off so badly. They've also revised up the first quake to 6.6 making it the second llargest in 0110..'s list.

Oh, and I didn't suggest that it was DEFINITE that there was going to be an eruption, only that it should be considered as a possibility. (Please do not put words in my mouth.) I've never understood why this board persists in viewing the world in exactly two shades - white and black. And 0110... if you go back and look at the data that you posted yourself, you'll note that with the exception of 1929 all the quakes were more or less isolated (and the wiki article mentions 1929 as a particauarly active year). Now this could very well be another isolated occurance - or it could be the start of something new. Point is, there's a reasonable chance to conclude either, pending further data.

As for the location of the volcano Hualalai:

this is where the lat long coordinates for hualalai say it is:
http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/i...0&t=pan&OL=Off

and here's where the USGS puts it.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanoes/hualalai/
please explain to me how this is not in the same area??

And yes, while it's true that we don't have a harmonic tremor (which only tend to immediately precede eruptions - and i'm talking about months and years here, not immediate as in hours and days), there are two things to keep in mind. One, we don't understand completely what's going on under the big island (we're not even 100% certain what causes the mantle plume which forms the islands in the first place.) and two, we're not 100% certain what happens to the volcanoes as the hot spot moves away from them. Do they go quietly into the night or do they go violently? One thing that the evidence seems to point to is a slightly more active, pyroclastic eruption than Hawaiians are used to seeing.

So, to reiterate the point, you have a volcano that's possibly *due*. A sudden jump in activity with both near-surface and deep events and a burgeoning tourist trade right on it's flanks. Sure, it could all be for naught and it mighe be another couple hundred years until an eruption. Or it could be six months away. Regardless, either of these scenarios is a helluva lot more likely than that claptrap the networks were spouting about another Indonesian tsunami off hawaii. Compared to the likelihood of that (considering we are in the middle of the pacific plate) hualalai's chance of erupting has to be several orders of magnitude greater.

I'm off to bed. I've passed on the relevent info. I can't force feed it.

john

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

Well, as you said, the primary rift zone for Hualalai runs northwest. And the epicentre was pretty much north of Hualalai.

And, the epicentre was not inside the volcano, since the volcano is an edifice that is built up on the ocean floor.

What happens is that lava moves up under the volcano, and then (unless it keeps going up to the caldera) it migrates out along one of the rift zones to wherever it eventually erupts.

This quake was not inside the volcano, since it was well under the ocean floor. So it does not relate to material moving inside the volcano or inside the rift zone.

Edited to add: The land over the epicentre is near where lavas from Kohala, Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa come together and to some extent overlap.

Edited again to add the link for the quake details: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...s/2006/ustwbh/

It is still llisted as 38.9 km deep.

And to mention that one volcano that is due for an eruption is Mauna Loa, which has been quiet now for longer than usual (during recorded history, which admittedly is not very long).

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Has anyone heard anything about how the Hawaiian observatories have been affected? Do they have power? are they still on their mounts? Was any instrumentation damaged?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I have not heard. But there is a weather report for Keck due out later today:

http://mkwc.ifa.hawaii.edu/forecast/mko/index.cgi

at 10 AM Hawaii time. Might be some mention of the quake when the weather report comes out, in the comment section,

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Earthquake magnitude upgraded to 6.7 to 7.0 today.

Island-wide power outages. I live near Punchbowl and it took 14 hours before power was restored to the building. Naturally no water, no internet and no elevator.

No fatalities or serious injuries reported. Some Big Island hospitals and such were damaged and evacuated. Airports were a mess with virtually nothing flying in or out.

Firemen, police, and ambulance crews were all running around like crazy. Good job you all!

As it happened, it was drill weekend for the Hawaii NG so they were there at the armories if needed.

There are still some things that need fixing but this morning it was about back to normal (in Honolulu).

i had some points of aurora's to rebut, but quite frankly I won't. it'll just continue the cycle of tit-for-tat and I'm far too interested in the actual subject and what I can dig up (pun unintended) about the quakes.



Also of note: the last time around this happened at this size (1929) the two big quakes happened 10 days apart. There's also some mention of magama moving upward in the caldera at the time. (i can't substantiate that with hard data unfortunately. all i have is the USGS's word on it.) Lastly, I can't get the depth of the quake for the 29 events yet. It would be interesting to see if they were at depth or not.

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

Unfortunately no comments about the quake, assuming I looked in the right place.

I did enjoy this comment about wind speed (bold mine)