It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gulf of California quakes: important common data

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I have been checking the quakes that occurred today in the area known as GULF OF CALIFORNIA and found the following important data:

Would you mind if I mention the quakes again? Please, believe me if I say it is important to make this summary first.

QUAKE NO. 1 GULF OF CALIFORNIA
Magnitude: 4.9
Light earthquake
UTC: 01:05:09
Location 27.941°N, 112.147°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program

QUAKE NO. 2 GULF OF CALIFORNIA
Magnitude: 4.6
Light earthquake
UTC: 03:45:04
Location 27.775°N, 112.155°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program

QUAKE NO. 3 GULF OF CALIFORNIA
Magnitude: 4.4
Light earthquake
UTC: 08:30:38
Location: 27.799°N, 112.278°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program

QUAKE NO. 4 GULF OF CALIFORNIA
Magnitude: 6.6
Strong earthquake
UTC 08:32:30
Location: 28.067°N, 112.105°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program

QUAKE NO. 5 GULF OF CALIFORNIA
Magnitude: 4.7
Light earthquake
UTC: 09:17:57
Location: 28.105°N, 112.506°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program

QUAKE NO. 6 GULF OF CALIFORNIA
Magnitude: 4.4
Light earthquake
UTC: 10:27:25
Location: 28.166°N, 112.108°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program


I am sure that now that you have it here above, you have been able to see the same thing I noticed.

Even though the quakes took place at different locations (similar, but not exactly the same location), all the seismic activity has occured at the same depth: 10 Km. (6.2 miles).



I mentioned it before (on the quake thread) but I will insist. The San Andreas Fault is the boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate and it covers more than 800 miles long and extends to depths of at least 10 miles within the Earth...


I am not confirming that these quakes are related with the San Andreas Fault. It is just a remark in order to read your opinions.
Please, your comments are welcome.
Thank you.




posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I plotted those points in the image below:

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Just for better perspective, the total distance between all points is 84 miles.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Thanks. Interesting. That graph describes a perimeter. Is there a hotspot in the center? If so, could be a volcano forming.

Anyone know? ...I used to have a link to a 'hotspot map' but no idea what I did with it...



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I dreamed last week that the golden gate bridge fell.
Is this bridge close to where the quakes are occuring?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
www.mantleplumes.org...




It has been suggested that mantle plumes underlie the mouth of the Gulf of California and the Mexican volcanic belt (Figure 1). Rifting began in the Gulf around 5.5 Ma with seafloor spreading beginning around 3.5 Ma. The notion of a Gulf Mouth hotspot derives from models that propose plumes to be the cause of continental break-up.


Very interesting. Never thought of a mantle plume or hot spot being in the Gulf of California. Granted those quakes were not at the mouth of the Gulf, but it really is mind-boggling that they were all at the same depth.


Here's a good source for that area...

eqinfo.ucsd.edu...



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagicaRose
I dreamed last week that the golden gate bridge fell.
Is this bridge close to where the quakes are occuring?


It depends on what you mean by "close". Relative to the size of the Earth, I'd say it's in the "neighborhood"



" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Cool wizdom - found this site: Near Real time Monitoring of Global Hotspots

And this image of the area (1/5/2006 -111.90 E 27.48 N) :





....Looks like there IS a hotspot where the "triangle" is ...? What do you all think? Maybe in the area marked "tres Virgene"?

NOTE: The Tres Virgenes volcano is at Location: 27.5N, 112.6W
Elevation: 6,365 feet (1,940 m)

The hotspot location I found on the thermal map is 111.90 E 27.48 N - and the earthquake activity is all 10 miles (km ?) underground.




Volcan de las Tres Virgenes (the volcano of the 3 virgins) is a volcano in a strange place for volcanoes. Early missionary reports contain a reference to an eruption in 1746 that was not actually witnessed. Volcan de las Tres Virgenes is the only historically active volcano on the Baja peninsula, and may have developed on a "leaky" transform fault rather than due to subduction. Presently Tres Virgenes is the site of geothermal development.

volcano.und.edu...

***

It is located near the E coast of Baja California, a region not usually noted for being volcanic. Volcan de las 3 Virgenes erupted last in the late 1700's. This photo has been annotated to show you that volcanoes are almost always made up of the products of many different eruptions, and even if they look like nice simple cones, they are actually quite complicated. Volcan de las 3 Virgenes has erupted a remarkable variety of lava types, namely basalt, andesite, and dacite.

volcano.und.edu...



...So what are the chief characterisics of basalt, andesite and dacite?



[edit on 4-1-2006 by soficrow]

[edit on 4-1-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Thank you for your interest and contribution to this thread: Freedom_for_sum, Soficrow, Magicarose & Wizdumb2003. I found your information really interesting and look forward to your further details.

I have found the following information of an unnamed volcano, maybe a submarine volcano.
Location: 28.00ºN, 115.00ºW
(close to the quakes)

On July 20, 1953 a submarine eruption was reported

This is another option. Don´t you think so?
Furthermore, I also find "Las Tres Virgenes"Volcano close to the location of the quakes but, even though, the 6.6 quake´s N location was 28.067ºN, which is closer to the location of the unnamed submarine volcano.

Please, check my first post back:
Regarding N, 3 quakes were over 28.00º and the lowest of the other 3 was 27.941º - North position of Tres Virgenes is 27.470º.
Therefore, may I say that the quakes tended to increase and not to decrease? (reaching the location of the unnamed volcano).

With regard to the W position, it is closer to the Tres Virgenes location (112.591º)...

And the depth... Well, I just wonder if magma was rising...
This 6 earthquakes with the same depth must mean something.

Could Tres Virgenes be connected with this unnamed volcano?



[edit on 5-1-2006 by Ptolomeo]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ptolomeo

Could Tres Virgenes be connected with this unnamed volcano?



Seems to be. I only checked one day back on the hotspot monitoring site - but a longer history might reveal more...



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The more we check about these quakes, the more interesting they seem to be.

We´ll have to keep a close eye on this matter.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   


...So what are the chief characterisics of basalt, andesite and dacite?


Basalt, andesite and dacite are all lava rocks. The presence of basalt means the magma was very hot (around 1160 degrees centigrade) when the volcano erupted.
The presence of andesite means the magma was between 900 and 1100 degrees centigrade. Dacite shows up when the magma temperatures are between 800 and 1000 degrees centigrade.

A fourth igneous rock, rhyolite, has the lowest eruption temperature of 700-850 degrees centigrade.

So, what the article is saying is that the Las Tres Virgenes volcano has erupted at different temperatures. I interpret this as sometimes the magma has a nice wide channel to flow through, and sometimes the channel gets gummed up which gives the rock a chance to cool somewhat.

Good flow means less disaster. Compare the Hawaii volcanoes -which have constant eruption-
to Mount St. Helens -which mostly has a creeping lava dome-
Mount St. Helens makes rhyolite. Hawaii makes basalt. Mount St. Helens is more dangerous because the slow growing lava dome can act like a cork and block the release of gasses.

source:
USGS glossary of volcanic rocks



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
We may be looking at alot of activity along the west coast. The quakes in the Gulf of California certainly look like they are marking a boundary. Plus all the activity earlier this year at the Salton Sea. St. Helens concerns me greatly. In 1980 there was a pressure release. While it appeared bad we have to consider the possibility that it was only a minor release and that the landslide made it appear worse. The concerning part is this mysterious flow of lava from the mountain that geologists are at a loss to explain. Like an iceberg it is really hard to tell what is below the surface. Do we really know how much magma sits beneath the mountain? This is a stratovolcano sitting on a major subduction zone. Look what happened to Tambora, Krakatoa and what is now Crater Lake. These mountains blew themselves out of existence. Of course they can and often do reform. But when these kinds of systems get corked the results can be catastrophic.

What would have the 1980 event at St. Helens had been like had the mountain not had a weakness on the side? The odd behavior of the mountain makes me wonder just what sits beneath the surface. Perhaps we have yet to see the big event.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I'll add that I have been watching (for almost a year now) for a quake in this location:

19, -114

which would be a precursor to a major quake in San Francisco. These are getting closer!



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
...would be a precursor to a major quake in San Francisco. These are getting closer!


I am also worried, Valhall. The Earth´s activity increase makes me wonder if Plates are not due to cause something really important or if a volcano (or supervolcano) will erupt...

San Andreas Fault is a large Fault. What if an important quake takes place? Could Yellowstone become more active?
I really find this extremely dangerous. We have to assume that our Planet is connected underground. Therefore, we cannot assure that Yellowstone would not be affected if San Andreas Fault had a strong earthquake.

Valhall, can you tell me if you are you checking the San Francisco seismicity yourself or do you have a research forum...?
Thank you.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
There have been a lot of small quakes along the New Madrid fault, too. New Madrid usually has several micro-quakes a day. Recently it's been showing a 1-2 on the richter scale every day. I haven't found any information on recent geological activity for the Arkansas caldera, but I look every week or so.
*blush* Geology is a hobby of mine, and people tend to forget about the Midwest.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join