Land surface temperature (LST) as earthquake precursor

[Ardit]

Several studies claim an increase of temperature 2-4 Celsius (3-7 Fahrenheit) few days prior to big earthquakes. The heat is supposed to come upward from gases released underground from pressure built. Also, increase of well waters and radon ionization above surface would contribute to the LST increase.

In my view, if a relation between LST and earthquakes exist, that would apply just after an earthquake strikes. Isn't there a release of energy when an earthquake occurs and wouldn't this heat up the land above? Please state your opinion?

[Externet]

Hi.

And where in the land -or soil- did those 'several' studies measured the temperature ?

Atmosphere boundary soil surface, 1cm. below surface, 10 cm below surface, 100 cm below surface ? ...

 

I would venture to say that measuring temperature any less than 15 metres depth would be affected by a cloudy or sunny, or snowy, or rainy day in such way that uncertainty would take over such theory.

 

After an earthquake happens and heat is released, the propagation speed of heat in soil is so slow and usual fault depths so great, that such land temperature change would show something months or years later, if ever, also due to heat dissipation and attenuation.

[Ardit]

Those studies have used satellite data which are daily observations of the land surface temperature, so we are talking about above surface observations.

Basically they have looked at the mean temperature based on other years and then compare the temperature of the earthquake year with the mean to seek for possible anomalies.

Yes, I agree that the weather might mask a possible temperature anomaly.

But I wouldn't agree that it would take months for the heat to reach the surface. If we take for instance an earthquake with a focal depth of 10 km, based on your assumption, the heat would travel up with a speed of only a couple of hundred meters per 24 hours.

But if you agree with a release of heat, do you think that would be the case before or after the fault happens?

Edited November 29, 2012 by Ardit

[Externet]

But I wouldn't agree that it would take months for the heat to reach the surface. If we take for instance an earthquake with a focal depth of 10 km, based on your assumption, the heat would travel up with a speed of only a couple of hundred meters per 24 hours.

 

Carefully observe at least the graphs here :

 

----> http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met455/notes/section6/2.html

 

And re-think for 10 Km.

 

But if you agree with a release of heat, do you think that would be the case before or after the fault happens?

 

Rock in faults accumulate stress and heat up, obviously warming its surrounds. Friction during earthquakes release heat. And a guess, after an earthquake, rocks reabsorb surrounding heat to an equilibrium point.

 

The heat propagation from a geological fault is not upwards only, but spherically into its surrounds, leaving only a tiny portion to surface, if any, and years after, if any, and greatly masked by weather. Note that after such tiny, tiny upwards heat has traveled upwards kilometres, encounters soil layers that in turn, propagate heat in all directions.

Murphy's law states that the heat heading towards the thermal measuring instruments you placed in the surface will be much, much less, if any, than the heat traveling to anywhere else your thermal instruments were not installed.

 

A sealed deep, deep, and dry cave -with not even human body heat in it to alter measurements- in a fault zone, would be a place to start your research for years waiting an earthquake. The day that such event happens, Murphy's law states that the measuring instruments will be experiencing a malfunction, a power interruption, or you name it.

[Ardit]

The graphs were brilliant. Heat reaching the surface in reasonable time -mission impossible! I have to thank you for that!

However there are other non related to heat conduction phenomena that may lead to an increase of the land surface temperature before earthquakes such as:

- rising fluids that would lead to the emanation of warm gases

- rising well water levels and CO2 spreading laterally and causing a ‘‘local greenhouse’’ effect

- activation of positive-hole pairs during rock deformation

 

- radon ionization of the near surface air and latent heat exchange due to variations of humidity

 

I would be happy if you again disprove any of them

[Externet]

Hi.

 

These are just opinions, I was not trying to disprove any theories.

 

The rise of hot fluids should obey more to a volcanic effect than to earthquakes, but there is some interrelationship between them.

 

Rising well waters would be highly masked by rainfall figures, seasonal irrigation activity, even dam operations or beaver works nearby.

 

I do not know about other effects, but would be interesting to have real* radon levels data in fault and not fault zones, and in geothermic generation wells, geysers and alike. If California is the most fault active, these maps tells the opposite relationship about radon :

 

---->http://www.radon.com/maps/

---->http://new.geoassurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RadonByZip.jpg

---->http://www.epa.gov/radon/states/california.html

---->http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/images2/radon-map.gif

 

But hey, that is one measurement one given day when the data was collected unless it is a permanent watch map... *And depending which institution you ask, will find differing maps Believe all, or none.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Externet

[Enthalpy]

You can eliminate heat produced by radioactivity, since inhabitants would be dead by radiation well before any temperature increase can be sensed.

[Ardit]

You can eliminate heat produced by radioactivity, since inhabitants would be dead by radiation well before any temperature increase can be sensed.

 

I don't know much about chemistry -Would the cause of the deaths be the increase of the radon amount or its ionization?

And maybe the radon effects the temperature more than it does with human body.