Note aftershocks ranging from 5.6 to 4.5 have also been felt in the last few hours. Here is a list of quakes.
We wish our Kiwi friends well, and hope that the quake is not as bad as first reports indicate.
From MSNBC
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — A 6.3-magnitude earthquake Tuesday rocked the southern New Zealand city of Christchurch, collapsing buildings, cracking streets and causing multiple fatalities and serious injuries.
The nation’s leader, Prime Minister John Key, said at least 65 had died as a result of the disaster and told reporters in the stricken city that the death toll was expected to rise further.
Live video footage showed streets strewn with bricks and shattered concrete. Sidewalks and roads were cracked and split, and hundreds of dazed, screaming and crying residents wandered as sirens blared throughout the city. Bodies were being pulled from rubble. Water mains burst, causing extensive flooding.
“There have been fatalities,” John Hamilton, the head of New Zealand’s civil defense, told reporters. “We can’t confirm the numbers yet, we’ll leave that to the police process to go through.”
New Zealand police said in a statement that there were reports of multiple deaths, including a report that two buses had been crushed by falling buildings. The police statement said there were other reports of fires burning.
…
The epicenter of the quake was located in the “worst possible location” for city residents, New Zealand’s GeoNet Center data manager Kevin Fenaughty told the New Zealand Herald.
From comments, link to a photogallery here
======================================================
Quake details:
| Magnitude | 6.3 |
|---|---|
| Date-Time |
|
| Location | 43.600°S, 172.710°E |
| Depth | 5 km (3.1 miles) |
| Region | SOUTH ISLAND OF NEW ZEALAND |
| Distances | NEAR Christchurch, New Zealand
225 km (140 miles) SSE of Westport, New Zealand 305 km (190 miles) SSW of WELLINGTON, New Zealand 310 km (190 miles) NE of Dunedin, New Zealand |
| Location Uncertainty | horizontal +/- 12.2 km (7.6 miles); depth +/- 0.6 km (0.4 miles) |
| Parameters | Nph= 0, Dmin=0 km, Rmss=0.98 sec, Gp= 0,
M-type=”moment” magnitude from initial P wave (tsuboi method) (Mi/Mwp), Version=D |
| Source |
|
| Event ID | usb0001igm |
magnitude earthquake Tuesday rocked the
southern New Zealand city of Christchurch,
collapsing buildings, cracking streets and
causing multiple fatalities and serious injuries.
The nation’s leader, Prime Minister John Key,said at least 65 had died as a result of the
disaster and told reporters in the stricken city
that the death toll was expected to rise further.
Live video footage showed streets strewn withbricks and shattered concrete. Sidewalks and
roads were cracked and split, and hundreds of
dazed, screaming and crying residents
wandered as sirens blared throughout the city.
Bodies were being pulled from rubble. Water
mains burst, causing extensive flooding.
“There have been fatalities,” John Hamilton, thehead of New Zealand’s civil defense, told
reporters. “We can’t confirm the numbers yet,
we’ll leave that to the police process to go
through.”
New Zealand police said in a statement thatthere were reports of multiple deaths,
including a report that two buses had been
crushed by falling buildings. The police
statement said there were other reports of
fires burning.
Mike Haseler says:
February 22, 2011 at 3:03 pm
2011 New Zealand earth quake: 65
So, basically New Zealanders don’t care a damn, about earthquakes so small … when it happens in Turkey … need I say more?
Mike Haseler you are so up yourself. You know nothing of us Kiwi’s and you have NO RIGHT to make such comments, How dare you. We are a country of 4.5 million people. We have just had the worst tragedy ever in New Zealand. We have 75 dead and 300 missing. There is a good chance that the 300 missing could be dead. Plus I would like to also point out that for us this earthquake was not o small as you put it. It may have been a 6.3 but with the fact it was only 5km deep it was a massive earthquake.
You are a rude and mean person who needs some serious mental help. I hope you never come to New Zealand as people like you are not welcome in our caring and helpful country. Go to hell.
A quake of similar magnitude that occured was predicted for the 22nd by a website based on the solar cycle, so there may be something to it???
@ur momisugly Stumpy which website was that? and are there any predictions for earthquakes in Wellington, New Zealand?
“stumpy says:
February 22, 2011 at 11:51 pm”
You mean this prediction?
http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=334&type=home
A misleading article if you ask me.
“Penny says:
February 23, 2011 at 12:26 am”
Wellington CBD would be a concern. Walking down Lambton Quay towards the beehive (Parliament house) you see the markers of the shoreline as it was before the 1840 quake. All the land on the right-hand side of that line was below sea level. Anything built on that land would suffer bad shaking and liquefaction, such as in Christchurch. Kilbirnie, the airport and other suburbs are all built on the, very flat land, that rose in 1840.
There are a few building that are set on bearings, the Beehive (Why?), the BNZ Tower and Te Papa, which you can go down below floor level and see.
I expereinced my first quake on the 9th floor of a building on The Terrace in 1995. I then studied the geology of New Zealand and wondered why I’d emigrated LOL.
vukcevic says:
February 22, 2011 at 2:10 am
That graph is very spooky indeed.
It may well just be a coincidence like the moon/sun subtended angle but it certainly raises the question of “why”.
Thanks Vuc
I am so sad for all the folks in Christchurch. I have a question: why would a 6.3 magnitude earthquake have been more damaging than the 7.1 earthquake they had last September? I’m curious. Is it only that the epicenter of the earthquake was somewhat shallower, or is it the fact that the previous earthquake may have weakened some structures enough that they could not withstand this new stress so soon after the September earthquake?
One more thing. I note that there was some significant liquefaction. Given that this is a coastal city, has there been a lot of infill over the years that created landmass or is it just the natural terrain tending to be more sandy that close to the coast. I admit ignorance of New Zealand geography. I sure would like to travel to Australia and New Zealand sometime, I hear it’s beautiful there. But this earthquake has given me some second thoughts. And no, I’ve not been to California in over 20 years either, and I have second thoughts about going there, too. Just don’t like being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You can get away with building on sand and silt for a while, but not all that long. Until something that can be cheaply and massively added to the subsoil to prevent liquefaction is developed and deployed, rebuilding in the same locale is suicidal, regardless of “building codes”.
Many cities world-wide are similar “disasters waiting to happen”. I live in one: Vancouver, Canada. Much of the south of the city is on Fraser River delta silt. There will be high rises sinking out of site when the overdue “Big One”, or a junior sibling, happens.
Keith Battye says: February 23, 2011 at 1:17 am
……………
That graph is very spooky indeed.
First, my dip and sincere sympathy is with the families and friends of the unfortunate casualties.
To understand what the Earth’s magnetic field was doing, it is important to envisage the GMF components configuration .
On this graph http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm observe values for H= intensity along the geomagnetic meridian, (blue line) with a ‘magnetic jerk’ of 3.6%, and D=declination (red line in degrees) i.e. magnetic meridian moving back and forth by nearly a degree .
An ordinary geomagnetic storm (for H down 1%) induces electric currents into lithosphere, as far down as 100 km, electric energy is huge; Dr.S. recons it is equivalent to power of an earthquake of magnitude 7. For this one H was 3.6% down.
For time being, to be considered as pure coincidence with the N.Z’s quake.
This is the most disturbing discussion I have seen in many months of following Watts Up? Apparently, reasoned argument has swooned in the face of sentimental bullying. Skepticism is nowhere to be seen. Where are the hard questions?
I’ve found only a handful of comments on the question of government responsibility for this disaster (even though it is largely economic at this point, as Mike Haseler points out – at the cost of sustaining some nasty personal attacks). What have New Zealand’s governments, civil engineers, and seismic experts been thinking about in the five months since the last earthquake in Christchurch? It looks very much like “boy, we dodged the bullet!”.
Someone has posted indignantly that New Zealand is on the leading edge of earthquake zone construction. They just didn’t know enough to expect this earthquake. Oh good! So no one’s at fault, no heads need roll. Or wait! Could it possibly be that, as in the case of the recent disastrous Queensland flooding, an alarm was sounded many years before, and was first buried by government, and then, when eventually leaked to the media, trivialized and ignored?
But no, we can’t speak of such possibilities, because that would be “disrespectful” of the dead, the injured and the homeless…Let’s just have some more of the same then.
And as for the comparison between popular demand for action on earthquake protection and global warming. As one poster said, there’s no money in warning of earthquake danger (or flood danger, for that matter). True – but much, much more relevant is the huge potential for loss in real estate value and capital investments that could follow a realistic and prudent assessment of earthquake risks in the developed world. Is everyone here, as it appears, selectively blind to this particular bias that happens to fit the picture?
How about some hard discussion. If Christchurch’s earthquake risk was so hugely underrated by “leading edge” seismology, let’s identify similar urban areas that might be equally improperly protected. Let’s see whether there truly was unanimity amoung seismic experts on the limited exposure of Christchurch to an earthquake of this magnitude. And if there wasn’t, how the “alarmist” view was received and disposed of.
otropogo, a great deal of earthquake strengthening has been done in Christchurch over the years despite the fact that until last September’s earthquake there were no known faults nearer the city than the great South Island alpine fault along the backbone of the island. Since the advent of the first computers in the early 1960’s there has been very extensive and continuous work and research by Canterbury University civil engineers on earthquake risks and structures. This has involved close cooperation and study with all the earthquake prone locations around the Pacific rim.
The Canterbury plain consists of alluvial gravels washed down from the Southern Alps and butting up against the hard volcanic rocks of Banks Peninsular and its several major volcanic cone harbours. The huge impact of this earthquake I suspect has been due to its origin immediately adjacent to Christchurch only 5km below these volcanic structures which has generated direct lateral forces like a giant hammer against the alluvial plain basin. The accelerations (forces) of this earthquake were greater by a factor of 2-3 than the 7.1 quake in September.
Furthermore, buildings and foundations have been weakened not only by the September earthquake but by the many thousands of aftershocks scattered all over the area under and around the city. Assessments of damage and allocation of repair resources have been unable to keep up with the damage which has been a moving target via major aftershocks.
It is pretty easy to ask “hard questions”. A lot harder to provide realistic answers.
Some remarkable photos of Christchurch after the quake, see No. 31 especially!
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/02/earthquake-in-new-zealand/100013/
I once worked with scientists from the Wool Research Organization of New Zealand in Christchurch (WRONZ), the Kiwis are some of the nicest folk I’ve ever known. How awful….but they are a resilient bunch and will work their way through this. See picture No. 47! Our prayers are with them.
Here is some detailed info on the geology and seismology:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10708275
Obviously these faults have been dormant for a long time. otropogo will have to look elsewhere for conspiracies to close eyes to danger.
@ur momisugly Alan Wilkinson:
“It is pretty easy to ask “hard questions”. A lot harder to provide realistic answers.”
In my experience, asking “hard questions” (ie. ones that business, government, realtors, and property owners don’t want to hear), is the most difficult part of the search for truth. First, because one becomes a target as the bearer of bad possibilities, and second, because it’s extremely difficult to get them published or broadcast. This is why I find their scarcity here so disturbing.
As for providing “realistic answers”, it may be difficult when hard questions are asked. But when they are not, it’s impossible. When the questions have been asked, and rejected, ignored or trivialized as improbable or “unrelastic”, then one has to ask whether the experts have the strength of character the job requires. You cannot make a Cassandra out of a sheep.
Your righteously ruffled feathers seem oddly out of place under the circumstances. You mention the weakening of buildings in the September earthquake – why was nothing done to contain the threat these weakened structures posed?
This discussion has become so shamelessly sentimental that I’m expecting someone to burst out with, “it’s no one’s fault, everyone did their best, they died doing what they loved [living presumably], and they’re in a better place now”
I suggest that a place of worship is a more appropriate venue for such emotional venting.
“You mention the weakening of buildings in the September earthquake – why was nothing done to contain the threat these weakened structures posed?”
It has been. This is a city of 350,000 people built over the past several centuries. What would you have done? Bombed it flat and rebuilt it all in reinforced concrete in five months?
You are being completely ridiculous. There is nothing sentimental in being sane and knowing what you are talking about. You should try it.
otropogo says: February 23, 2011 at 10:19 am
[Apparently, reasoned argument has swooned in the face of sentimental bullying. Skepticism is nowhere to be seen. Where are the hard questions?
I’ve found only a handful of comments on the question of government responsibility for this disaster (even though it is largely economic at this point, as Mike Haseler points out – at the cost of sustaining some nasty personal attacks). What have New Zealand’s governments, civil engineers, and seismic experts been thinking about in the five months since the last earthquake in Christchurch? It looks very much like “boy, we dodged the bullet!”.]
———————————————————————-
I don’t see anything that Mike Haseler has said here that was constructive. He seemed focussed upon NZers not giving a toss about earthquakes happening elsewhere.
Nor are you being constructive. I don’t see any sign of reasoned argument coming from your direction.
You are already looking to blame the Government otropogo even before the bodies have been recovered. Well bully for you. I will resist drawing the obvious conclusions about that approach at this time.
The fact is that NZ has done a lot of research into earthquakes as do all the countries around the Pacific Rim. We have to as they tend to be rather common here. How much should they have done? According to you, it seems enough to have all the answers about this subject so that it could never happen again I suppose. The fact that we did not know that this was going to happen in the way it did does not mean to say that we are complacent or that the government is to blame. Maybe the answer is that a city should never have been built just where Christchurch is. But it was and has been there for 160 years. It has survived many earthquakes over that period and even the 7.3 one on September 4th last was not as damaging as this 6.3 one. Perhaps it should have been rebuilt elsewhere. Well, one does not just move a city like that very easily.
This one is different to any that I have ever seen. All the underground infrastructure is severely disrupted as are the roads. The degree and extent of liquefaction is much greater that I have seen before. The obvious damage to large buildings is matched by substantial damage to a large percentage of the small domestic structures, many of which are built of wood as opposed to brick and stone. These are normally more resistant to earthquake damage than the latter. I doubt if we could have foreseen this one coming and even if we did – how would we have got out of it’s way?
What would you do otropogo? Shoot the Prime Minister?
Douglas
otropogo says: February 23, 2011 at 10:19 am
What have New Zealand’s governments, civil engineers, and seismic experts been thinking about in the five months since the last earthquake in Christchurch? It looks very much like “boy, we dodged the bullet!”.
——————————————————————-
Oh yes and this gem (above) from otropogo.
Have you ever seen the extent of earthquake damage babycakes?
What do you think the earthquake assessors and engineers were doing since the September 4th event? Why, they were assessing the damage claims caused by that little baby– well in excess of 160,000 of them like 8,000 assessed each week. Cost more or less NZ$7b. They were all sitting on their arses weren’t they babycakes! Get a life.
Douglas
Scientists have been warning now for some decades that global warming is having an effect on the earths crustal integrity. The world’s warming of 0.6 degrees over the last 100 years has softened the mantle to such an extent that the crustal plates are warping
to an unprecedented extent. Many more such extreme events can be expected in the near future.
/sarc
Our thoughts are with you NZ.
@FrankK
“Nor are you being constructive. I don’t see any sign of reasoned argument coming from your direction.”
I was attempting to clear the slate so that some meaningful discussion of the event and the reason for its disastrous effects could take place, including the role of government and of its seismic advisors. I call that constructive. What’s constructive about your hostile rant?
“You are already looking to blame the Government otropogo even before the bodies have been recovered”.
Oh, do you believe that autopsies of the dead will exonerate the government for its failure to take adequate precautions in the wake of the last earthquake? Seriously, whom would you hold responsible?
You suggest the assessors and engineers were working as hard as they could to assess the damage claims. If they’d had their priorities right, and given first attention to securing, demolishing, or cordoning off dangerously weakened structures, many casualties could have been avoided. If they hadn’t enough skilled hands, they should have asked for help from abroad.
So Christchurch is “centuries”old (according to Douglas), and 160 years according to you. But I don’t imagine it’s had 350,000 inhabitants anywhere near that long. What on earth would you do in the face of tsunami – gather around the cathedral and pray?
The ground moves about every 10-15 minutes still (a bit like a large truck shaking the ground) and a bigger shake about every hour (enough to make you jump and easily enough to knock over older people).
The September quake was in the countryside more than 20km away and was deeper, this was under the city and extremely shallow. Many houses barely affected by the September quake are now extensively damaged, especially those on the Port Hills (a ridge of extinct volcanic lava forming a ridge between the city and the harbour at Lyttleton). In September it was the older Victorian era buildings that showed major damage, many have been demolished since then. Many in poorer areas and somewhat rundown with no extra earthquake strengthening largely because of the huge cost this involves. A bit like going bankrupt now to protect assets you will no longer have compared to a disaster when it actually arrives. In hind sight probably a poor decision, but everyone has excellent hind sight.
The major difference now is that relatively modern reinforced concrete buildings have been seriously damaged in spite of excellent engineering codes actually adhered to. The codes were essentially calculated on a very large earthquake deep in the ground and about 100km away (the Alpine fault on the plate edges) while this was nearly on the surface and very close (6.3 Richter, VIII on modified Mercalli, 5 km deep and within the built environment).
Identification of the dead means nearly all residents will know them or they are a relative of a friend or work colleague (I have 2 so far and counting). This time of summer is also a significant time for tourism in a city popular with tourists. The estimated 20 thought to be in the cathedral and at least some of the 100 in the language college that collapsed (CTV building) are likely to be visitors.
We have had rapid and strong responses nationally and internationally to this massive calamity. The next few weeks and months will reveal just how serious the damage is – not just the relatively few buildings we have seen in the news, but widespread through the city, old and modern buildings. The severe underground movement has seriously disrupted services – especially for flushing toilets.
I will wait for informed assessment, but believe that neither earthquake occurred at known faults. This is not a case of blaming nature to be able to find no-one at fault, but an example of the awesome forces involved and just how puny we humans are in the face of this force. And to think I migrated here from geologically stable Gondwanaland!
otropogo
“What on earth would you do in the face of tsunami – gather around the cathedral and pray?”
In the tsunami from the earthquake in Chile last year, many drove to the beaches to watch it, apparently the same as they did in 1959. No point in gathering around the cathedral, you cannot see the sea from there. In both cases, what actually arrived was insufficient to contribute to the Darwin awards. You can draw your own conclusion from that.
Ah, the ‘tell’ of Warmist BS delivery: “Scientists” (some, most, all, unspecified) believe, warn, suspect, suggest bla blah blahh.
Horse-pucky, Frankie. Stupid assertions like that one require REEELLLY good backup links, not more “scientists say” bushwah.
otropogo says: February 23, 2011 at 10:48 pm
@ur momisuglyFrankK
I was attempting to clear the slate so that some meaningful discussion of the event and the reason for its disastrous effects could take place, including the role of government and of its seismic advisors. I call that constructive. What’s constructive about your hostile rant?
———————————————————————-
Otropogo No you weren’t. You were looking for a place to put blame.
Read what Warrick says @ur momisugly Warrick says: February 24, 2011 at 2:23 am. This might put you straight.
Douglas
Ignore otropogo. Here are more immediate conclusions:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10708579