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.

 

Quake Watch 2010

page: 124
123
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


That would be this one?



I will see if I can get data for it.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
So was that a 6.0 AND a 6.3 or are they one and the same???



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MoorfNZ
 


Looks like they are different

Magnitude 6.0
Date-Time

* Friday, April 30, 2010 at 23:16:29 UTC
* Friday, April 30, 2010 at 02:16:29 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 60.524°N, 177.728°W
Depth 15.7 km (9.8 miles)
Region BERING SEA

Magnitude 6.3
Date-Time

* Friday, April 30, 2010 at 23:11:44 UTC
* Friday, April 30, 2010 at 02:11:44 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 60.644°N, 177.901°W
Depth 15.1 km (9.4 miles)
Region BERING SEA

Very slightly different lat/lon

2 in the middle of nowhere???



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


V, strange location.

I found this interesting snippet - considering the "disappearing 5.0" in California, could the Bering Sea 6's be indicative of potential California quake?

Did the California Quake Originate in Bering Sea.




By Garrett P. Serviss. A question that will probably be long debated among geologists, and that possesses a keen interest for the people of San Francisco and the Pacific Coast in general, is whether the new steam-belching island thrust up from the bottom of Bering sea coincidently with the occurrence of the San Francisco earthquake had any causal connection with that earthquake or not.


content.cdlib.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


No, it was GFZ.. before USGS was reporting on the Mashup.

Edit: GFZ is showing both now.. 6.0 and 6.1, USGS is showing 6.0 and 6.3

I was thinking this was one in the same from the chart.. just showing my noobishness.


[edit on 30-4-2010 by broahes]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
For those who are looking into drilling related to quakes - Bering Sea could be a candidate to investigate:

www.strategicnine.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MoorfNZ
 


I wasn't really looking into the subject, but that was a very interesting link and as peeked my curiosity. Thanks for sharing that.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy
 


That would be this one?



I will see if I can get data for it.


Yeah thats the one, so I wan't seeing things
Cheers.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MoorfNZ
 

Interesting article circa 1907 ( didn't realise that at first
)

I guess the Bering Sea eruption (new volcanic island ) they were talking about was in the Aleutian Chain?
I wonder which one it was, there are quite a few, still active.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MoorfNZ
 


Take 1000 stars! Excellent article. Interestingly in the past 365 days there have been few earthquakes in the Bering Sea.



With the exception of the latest three most of these fall well outside the area delineated in the article. The last three are just on the edge of the area.

Good find and may be very relevant, but I am wondering if such strong quakes would be caused by drilling? This merits further investigation.

reply to post by muzzy
 


Unfortunately that particular instrument does not have any available data in real-time, nor does it have any archive data available. In fact none of the instruments in the North California network in that segment have real-time data available. It is like a news blackout!

I regret I am unable to investigate due to the lack of data, however I have checked other instruments close by and there appears to be no signal like that so I conclude that it was man made or an instrument glitch, or as you said, someone kicked it!


[edit on 1/5/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
northern ca quake

They're making mistakes with the quakes now. Cooking data? Was Haiti quake an "error". Maybe it was bunker buster bombs. What gives?

false quake


[edit on 1-5-2010 by m khan]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Magnitude 4.5
Date-Time

* Saturday, May 01, 2010 at 12:54:42 UTC
* Saturday, May 01, 2010 at 03:54:42 AM at epicenter

Location 60.773°N, 177.791°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region BERING SEA

Another one??? Most odd. Posted because of it's possible significance.

[edit on 1/5/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by m khan
 





There is a trade- off between the speed of our earthquake notifications and number of false alarms in the same way that any kind of "breaking news" story may have substantial changes or corrections as more information is received. The faster we release earthquake locations and magnitudes, the more likely it is that the information may be erroneous. Experience demonstrates that imposing more restrictive quality standards prevents the release of legitimate earthquake information.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Recent Example:
8.0 False Alarm



EDITED to fix link.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by broahes]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy
 


Unfortunately that particular instrument does not have any available data in real-time, nor does it have any archive data available. In fact none of the instruments in the North California network in that segment have real-time data available. It is like a news blackout!

I regret I am unable to investigate due to the lack of data, however I have checked other instruments close by and there appears to be no signal like that so I conclude that it was man made or an instrument glitch, or as you said, someone kicked it!


[edit on 1/5/2010 by PuterMan]


O well, never mind, that was the only graph that stood out as different.
Thanks for trying tho



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I see that GEOFON have revised the magnitudes of the two Bering Sea quakes.
They never picked up the 4.3 foreshock that USGS shows.

Off the current lists at this time;

GEOFON
2010-04-30 23:16:28 6.1 60.35 N 177.48 W 15 M Bering Sea
2010-04-30 23:11:44 6.1 60.41 N 177.94 W 13 M Bering Sea

USGS
6.0 2010/04/30 23:16:30 60.524 -177.728 15.7 BERING SEA
6.3 2010/04/30 23:11:45 60.644 -177.901 15.1 BERING SEA
4.3 2010/04/30 23:10:24 60.629 -177.900 14.2 BERING SEA

Russian Academy of Sciences
2010-04-30 23:16:29.4 60.52 -177.75 20 6.1mb Bering Sea
2010-04-30 23:11:42.4 60.52 -177.80 20, 6.7ms,6.2mb Bering Sea

BTW I wonder whats happened to EMSC? there is no data after 16/4/2010 and the feeds to Live Earthquakes ends there too


I like to get 3 opinions


You have to do some work at RAS, enter the correct date, they have a messed up date as a default on their search engine

edited to insert links.

I see the Australians only list 1 quake, yet their graph clearly shows two quakes



[edit on 1-5-2010 by muzzy]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Re the EMSC breakdown.
Luckily their "List of Messages Recieved" is still working, so can still do a reference check.
eg;


53:17.5 17.2 N 58.1 E 33 mb 5.2 A OWEN FRACTURE ZONE REGION LDG
52:57.5 12.8 N 57.6 E 33 mb 4.9 M OWEN FRACTURE ZONE REGION GSRC
52:57.0 12.8 N 57.5 E 10 ML 4.9 M OWEN FRACTURE ZONE REGION IGUT
52:56.8 12.8 N 57.5 E 10 G mb 4.9 M OWEN FRACTURE ZONE REGION NEIR
52:56.8 12 N 57.6 E 14 M 4.6 A OWEN FRACTURE ZONE REGION GFZ
52:56.2 12.8 N 57.5 E 10 G mb 5 A OWEN FRACTURE ZONE REGION MIX
52:51.9 12.1 N 56.8 E 20 mb 5.1 A SOCOTRA REGION BGSG
52:49.2 11.9 N 58.1 E 15 mb 4.9 A OWEN FRACTURE ZONE REGION ZAMG
52:31.4 11.4 N 61.1 E 2 mb 5.1 M ARABIAN SEA MAD

check;
GFZ Potsdam - Earthquake Bulletin
Region: Owen Fracture Zone Region
Time: 2010-05-01 18:53:00.7 UTC
Magnitude: 4.8
Epicenter: 57.56°E 12.98°N
Depth: 9 km
Status: automatic

[edit on 1-5-2010 by muzzy]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


I see the Australians still have it as a 6.7 as well.

The site also says this:


Time shown is UTC time, which is within a few seconds of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)


The maximum difference allowed is 0.9 seconds.

See UTC on Wikipedia

Wrong data?. Wrong info?
G'day, sorry too busy with the barbie on the beach to correct things. Have a tinnie. Cheers Mate, don't mind if I do.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
5.0 in Antofagasta, Chile. 156 km N of Calama, depth 74km.

I'm sure muzzy or Puterman will be along with more in depth info soon



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Action is picking up again in Chile.

5.0
Date-Time Saturday, May 01, 2010 at 21:01:31 UTC
Saturday, May 01, 2010 at 05:01:31 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 21.126°S, 68.622°W
Depth 74.4 km (46.2 miles)
Region ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
Distances 150 km (95 miles) NNE of Calama, Antofagasta, Chile
190 km (120 miles) ESE of Iquique, Tarapaca, Chile
195 km (120 miles) ENE of Tocopilla, Antofagasta, Chile
1380 km (860 miles) N of SANTIAGO, Region Metropolitana, Chile

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 21.6 km (13.4 miles); depth +/- 9.5 km (5.9 miles)
Parameters NST=125, Nph=184, Dmin=898.3 km, Rmss=0.86 sec, Gp=126°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

Wrong data?. Wrong info?
G'day, sorry too busy with the barbie on the beach to correct things. Have a tinnie. Cheers Mate, don't mind if I do.


thats what I was thinking too, "Oh well I guess is IS the weekend".



new topics

top topics



 
123
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join