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: 184
123
<< 181  182  183    185  186  187 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Thanks for that link again. I hope that particular add-on updates soon but right now from what I can see it isn't yet compatible with the latest Firefox version 3.6.8

Does anyone know differently or would you kindly notify us when this becomes available from the eQuake developer with Mozilla? This guy deserves our support and encouragement.

addons.mozilla.org...

Who can live without it once you start following earthquakes? I know there's more sophisticated ways of receiving earthquake data but this program totally rocks.




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


LOL.

What do you make of what seems to be an increase in 7.0's already this year?

Do you see it that way? Or do you consider it a 'statistical fluke?'



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

What should we be posting?



Just a reminder of a post some time ago

I have been looking at the amount of quakes that we post and am wondering if we should really be posting ANY quakes that are unlikely to have been felt, say under 4.0, unless there is some particular strange significance about the event.

My personal feeling on what we should be posting and how we should deal with things is as follows. You are of course completely at liberty to ignore me and tell me to get lost!
  • No quakes under 4.0 need to be posted unless really significant
  • Quakes between 4.0 and 4.9 should be posted if they are in an area of significance, for example right under a geothermal station or a nuclear site, or right on a known fault in tension. A stray 4.0 to 4.9 in an isolated area is not really of significance.
  • 5.0 to 5.9 Yes post. It would be useful if we could indicate our feelings about why it is significant.
  • 6.0 upwards, post of course and consider if the event warrants it's own thread. This will probably only be the case if there is significant damage or loss of life or the quake has affected a significant structure - bridge, dam, your house etc.

I mention creating a thread because it will happen anyway so you can bet you may well have been beaten to it!

There are no rules as such, but this has been accepted practice so this is just a gentle reminder



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by PuterMan
 


LOL.

What do you make of what seems to be an increase in 7.0's already this year?

Do you see it that way? Or do you consider it a 'statistical fluke?'


I thought that I pretty much covered that in these two posts

Quakes based on numbers

Quakes based on energy release

Having said that although at the time the trend of 7+ based on energy release was down even though the numbers were up, obviously we need to wait until the end of the month before I can do the calcs again.

There is no such thing as a statistical fluke when it comes to earthquakes. Despite the fact that we often say "that's normal" etc to people there is of course nothing normal about any quakes. You cannot apply statistics to Mother Nature, despite the fact that we do that all the time. She will always catch us out in the end!!

There's lies, there's damned lies and then there's earthquake statistics to 'alter' a well known phrase!



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by quakewatcher
 


2 Fore-shocks and after-shocks

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
05/08/2010 17:45:20,43.5955,-110.5499,3.20,7.00,Wyoming
05/08/2010 14:59:28,43.6463,-110.4161,4.20,5.00,Wyoming
05/08/2010 00:04:17,43.5851,-110.4400,4.80,5.00,Wyoming
05/08/2010 00:04:03,43.5848,-110.4377,3.00,5.00,Wyoming
04/08/2010 13:27:27,43.6070,-110.4871,1.50,12.80,Wyoming



or from another angle



[edit on 5/8/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I'd call that an aftershock sequence, rather than a swarm.

(haven't looked at the numbers prior to the 6.6 on the 18th though)
I had a quick look at the 8-30 day list, I only see 1 quake prior, a 3.4 on the 15th and a 2.6 on the 11th (processed by eye, not using my computer)



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Just scrolling through the 7 day list at USGS and there is a lot of red there on the 4th Aug.
4x 6's and 1x7.0

Whats up? why are they pumping up the numbers?

GEOFON only shows 3 x 6's. The rest were listed below 6.
Its usually Geofon who qualifies quakes higher.

Does this seemingly large number of Strong quake in a 24hrs period coincide with that Solar Flare phenomenon (I seen the extreme Aurora Lights on TV New)



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


I think the Solar Flare issue is on everyone's mind - who follows quakes of course and of course once again, if we knew the answer we'd be on that beach.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


my main quibble about the quakes posted is . . .

it would be far preferable if the MAGNITUDE

could either have a space before and after it or ideally be at the beginning of the line or the end of the line.

or else be in a table.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Latin America this time.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Magnitude 5.2
Date-Time Thursday, August 05, 2010 at 20:35:50 UTC
Thursday, August 05, 2010 at 04:35:50 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 20.036°S, 70.493°W
Depth 38.2 km (23.7 miles)
Region OFFSHORE TARAPACA, CHILE
Distances 40 km (25 miles) WNW of Iquique, Tarapaca, Chile
175 km (105 miles) S of Arica, Tarapaca, Chile
225 km (140 miles) S of Tacna, Peru
1485 km (920 miles) N of SANTIAGO, Region Metropolitana, Chile



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


Yes, I was in a hurry! My excuse. I have corrected it so pleeeeese don't give me a D- teacher.

It still looks odd on Google Earth. You don't normally see that in the area. It is usually several just dotted about.

Sequence up to the 18th and the big one.

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
18/07/2010 05:56:44,52.8667,-169.8405,6.60,10.00,Fox Islands
18/07/2010 03:44:55,52.6269,-169.4216,2.00,6.80,Fox Islands
18/07/2010 03:23:44,52.7130,-169.5708,1.90,4.90,Fox Islands
17/07/2010 14:47:42,52.7313,-169.6449,3.00,4.30,Fox Islands
17/07/2010 14:44:15,52.6834,-169.7316,4.30,7.60,Fox Islands
17/07/2010 14:15:17,52.6480,-169.4330,2.10,10.00,Fox Islands
15/07/2010 21:52:52,52.6178,-169.9893,3.40,0.80,Fox Islands
14/07/2010 23:53:15,53.0496,-168.6946,2.70,106.10,Fox Islands
14/07/2010 09:40:00,52.0910,-170.4773,2.80,10.00,Fox Islands
12/07/2010 05:20:32,52.0340,-169.3506,2.20,25.00,Fox Islands
11/07/2010 23:27:06,52.0666,-169.5063,2.60,28.50,Fox Islands
11/07/2010 13:34:11,52.4462,-168.6741,2.20,25.50,Fox Islands
11/07/2010 02:57:28,52.3662,-170.4553,2.60,24.70,Fox Islands
10/07/2010 14:29:54,52.6908,-168.5156,2.10,25.00,Fox Islands
07/07/2010 12:52:05,52.4564,-169.0292,1.80,25.50,Fox Islands
07/07/2010 11:32:23,52.3137,-169.0225,2.00,22.50,Fox Islands
06/07/2010 20:05:59,52.6926,-168.5247,2.10,23.00,Fox Islands
03/07/2010 04:01:51,52.7401,-168.5805,2.10,39.80,Fox Islands
01/07/2010 21:09:26,52.1604,-168.7978,2.50,38.50,Fox Islands
01/07/2010 06:06:30,52.2828,-169.4630,2.70,28.60,Fox Islands


[edit on 5/8/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy
 


Yes, I was in a hurry!

My excuse. It still looks odd on Google Earth. You don't normally see that in the area. It is usually several just dotted about,



your google earth pics looks like a mountain or a top of a volcano



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


I would agree with you that the format as it gets pasted is not ideal. Obviously on the USGS page it is, but the only alternative to C&P is to snag the table and then it is a long haul to get the picture into ATS.

It would be great if you could have tables in a post but I don't think you can.

Example:
>
>
>This is 1 col
>This is the 2nd

Edit to say it did not work


[edit on 5/8/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
So gang, what's going on in Jackson WY?

Looks like those are maybe on a new fault line? I see fault lines there but not where the quakes are happening.

earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
So - the question also is - what's going on at long Valley

Magnitude 3.7
Date-Time Friday, August 06, 2010 at 01:20:03 UTC
Thursday, August 05, 2010 at 06:20:03 PM at epicenter

Location 37.622°N, 118.814°W
Depth 7.6 km (4.7 miles)
Region LONG VALLEY AREA, CALIFORNIA
Distances 14 km (8 miles) WNW (300°) from Toms Place, CA
15 km (9 miles) E (96°) from Mammoth Lakes, CA
30 km (19 miles) NW (320°) from Round Valley, CA
254 km (158 miles) ESE (113°) from Sacramento, CA

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.2 km (0.1 miles); depth +/- 0.4 km (0.2 miles)
Parameters Nph= 41, Dmin=3 km, Rmss=0.05 sec, Gp= 54°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=2
Source California Integrated Seismic Net:
USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR

Event ID nc71442046


[edit on 5-8-2010 by Anmarie96]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

What should we be posting?



Just a reminder of a post some time ago

I have been looking at the amount of quakes that we post and am wondering if we should really be posting ANY quakes that are unlikely to have been felt, say under 4.0, unless there is some particular strange significance about the event.

My personal feeling on what we should be posting and how we should deal with things is as follows. You are of course completely at liberty to ignore me and tell me to get lost!
  • No quakes under 4.0 need to be posted unless really significant
  • Quakes between 4.0 and 4.9 should be posted if they are in an area of significance, for example right under a geothermal station or a nuclear site, or right on a known fault in tension. A stray 4.0 to 4.9 in an isolated area is not really of significance.
  • 5.0 to 5.9 Yes post. It would be useful if we could indicate our feelings about why it is significant.
  • 6.0 upwards, post of course and consider if the event warrants it's own thread. This will probably only be the case if there is significant damage or loss of life or the quake has affected a significant structure - bridge, dam, your house etc.

I mention creating a thread because it will happen anyway so you can bet you may well have been beaten to it!

There are no rules as such, but this has been accepted practice so this is just a gentle reminder


Thankyou!!! This has been my favourite thread for a long time but i've had to stop looking through it because it's really just too many posts that aren't really necessary.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


A slip up like that again could lead to demotion to Sub-Superhero status



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anmarie96
So - the question also is - what's going on at long Valley

Magnitude 3.7
Date-Time Friday, August 06, 2010 at 01:20:03 UTC
Thursday, August 05, 2010 at 06:20:03 PM at epicenter

Location 37.622°N, 118.814°W
Depth 7.6 km (4.7 miles)
Region LONG VALLEY AREA, CALIFORNIA
Distances 14 km (8 miles) WNW (300°) from Toms Place, CA
15 km (9 miles) E (96°) from Mammoth Lakes, CA
30 km (19 miles) NW (320°) from Round Valley, CA
254 km (158 miles) ESE (113°) from Sacramento, CA

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.2 km (0.1 miles); depth +/- 0.4 km (0.2 miles)
Parameters Nph= 41, Dmin=3 km, Rmss=0.05 sec, Gp= 54°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=2
Source California Integrated Seismic Net:
USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR

Event ID nc71442046

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Anmarie96]


I haven't looked into it, but those names "Toms Place" and "Mammoth Lakes" sound familiar.
Wasn't there a big swarm or big quake there sometime in the last couple of years?

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Type in Lat 37.622 and Long -118.814 and say ......... 100km radius



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


Muzzy - Long Valley is another "Active" "Super Volcano" smaller that Yellowstone - by just some. Here is theHome page for Long Valley. This area is one to watch just as close as Yellowstone because the volcanic activity there is much more unstable - the gases there are way up and have been for some time - unlike Yellowstone.

Edit for late night spelling

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Anmarie96]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Anmarie96
 





new topics

top topics



 
123
<< 181  182  183    185  186  187 >>

log in

join