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: 243
123
<< 240  241  242    244  245  246 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by bkaust
 



yeah, I've read up about that one too, I was surprised when I first hear about it! you dont think 'volcano' when you hear Victoria!


I don't think volcano when I hear Australia, let alone Victoria! In fact today I have been enlightened.

So, when is it gonna blow then?


I found a wiki list of the List of Volcanoes in Australia and there is A LOT more than I ever imagined! :p

The most recently active one is that Mt Gambier one, they said they've found ash from 4,700 years ago & 1,400 years ago - very interesting! I can't imagine what it'd be like to have an eruption in Australia in modern times, I think we take our lack of natural disasters for granted, giving us a false sense of security - although cyclone season can't be too far away! ;p




posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
All very interesting, should be on the Volcano Watch Thread though.


I think what got me hooked into this Quake Watching in the first palce is that there is always something happening, turn you back for a day and kaboom out of left feild, this. (I missed a day putting the NZ data to a map)

Couple of rare(ish) quakes out on the Pacific Plate, Chatham Island Ridge some 380km east of Christchurch
3404044, -43.59552, 177.19193, 2010/11/8 5:12:19, 24, 3.742, Reserve Bank, Chatham Rise
3404045, -43.05096, 177.4686, 2010/11/8 5:12:24, 180, 3.963, Reserve Bank, Chatham Rise

Map



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   


Magnitude
6.3
Date-Time
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 04:05:24 UTC
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 10:05:24 AM at epicenter
Location
45.538°S, 96.394°E
Depth 10.7 km (6.6 miles)
Region
SOUTHEAST INDIAN RIDGE
Distances
2250 km (1400 miles) SW of PERTH, Western Australia, Australia
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 16.7 km (10.4 miles); depth +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles)
Parameters
NST= 70, Nph= 74, Dmin=>999 km, Rmss=1.42 sec, Gp= 47°,
M-type="moment" magnitude from initial P wave (tsuboi method) (Mi/Mwp), Version=5
Source
USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Event ID
usc00008jr



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Magnitude 5.2
Date-Time

* Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 10:30:20 UTC
* Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 06:30:20 PM at epicenter

Location 14.956°N, 119.826°E
Depth 59.2 km (36.8 miles)
Region LUZON, PHILIPPINES
Distances

* 52 km (32 miles) WNW (288°) from Olongapo, Luzon, Philippines
* 81 km (50 miles) WSW (255°) from Angeles, Luzon, Philippines
* 128 km (80 miles) WNW (287°) from MANILA, Philippines
* 137 km (85 miles) WSW (244°) from Cabanatuan, Luzon, Philippines

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 16.5 km (10.3 miles); depth +/- 0.6 km (0.4 miles)
Parameters NST= 83, Nph= 83, Dmin=295 km, Rmss=1.04 sec, Gp= 97°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=8
Source

* U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center:
World Data Center for Seismology, Denver

Event ID usc00008kz

Right next to Pinatubo



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Things are really unstable right now. Does anyone think we will have another 8.0 or higher this month in the Indonesia area?



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SunDawg
 

The thought has crossed my mind, however I hope not especially having witnessed the 2004 tsunami first hand, I still live in the same part of the world and once is enough thanks!!



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SunDawg
 

Sorry but I don't agree that things are really unstable right now. The number of larger quakes is pretty well around the average, a fact that can be checked by searching the NEIC database, for example. Short-term observations are not going to give us any real idea of how stable or unstable things are. Generally, it's best to compare data for the past year with (say) that of the past 10 or twenty years. I've done that for all mag 5-plus quakes in the past year compared to the past twenty years and there is little deviation from the longer-term averages.

Here's a link to a search of the NEIC database for all quakes of mag 5 or greater from Nov 10, 2009 to Nov 9, 2010:
Quakes mag 5-plus, past year.

There were 1243 in that 12-month period.

Now here's a link to the same database and for the same mag range, but for the 20-year period from Nov 10, 1990 to Nov 9 2010:
Quakes mag 5-plus, past 20 years.

There were 31,486 in that time, which works out at 31,486/20 = 1574 per year.

So actually, the number of quakes of mag 5-plus in the past 12 months is a bit down on the longer-term average. However, we're only about 300 off for the 12 months, which is less than one per day below the longer-term average, so it's not highly significant. Even if it were around one per day more that wouldn't be very significant either.

The point I'm making is that we can't just go on what happened in the past few weeks. After all, there can be weeks where the number of larger quakes is way below or above the average, but it means very little. The long-term perspective is really the only realistic way to go.

As for the chances of a mag 8 or bigger -- sure, one could happen any time. But on average, this planet only gets one or two per year. However, some years we have none, other years we get more than two. It's very hard to say. Just looking at the stats for the year we've had one big one already (mag 8.8 Chile Feb 27) -- but that doesn't mean it'll be another year or two before the next big one. We could get three in a week, or none for two years. These things are incredibly difficult to analyze from a predictive standpoint.

Best regards,

Mike



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Well I've read and re read the Smoot surge tectonics paper and now I'm ready to rip up my geology text books. I'm probably as confused as ever. It was interesting that the theories which have been accepted so widely are based on so little fact and KNOWN conflicting information. I don't know how text books can outwardly state that the Pangea theory is how it all happened....and without so much as an explanation to why they came to that conclusion. I'm annoyed now.

By the way, I don't know how we got onto the topic of volcanoes on here. Sorry all.

Is it my imagination or has Iran been more active than usual?



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bkaust
 


There is a Rockhampton Volcano but I don't know much about it. Was doing geo through cqu Rocky, but not on campus so was at a huge disadvantage. Good place for thunder eggs and unusual landscapes.

Back on topic (sorry again, just wanted to reply to Bkaust)

Apparently there was a tremor in Queensland in the last week. I missed that one. Anyone know where it was centred?



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Quick update before bed:

2010-11-10 13:55:03.652min ago 37.82 N 23.83 E 59 ML 2.7 SOUTHERN GREECE 2010-11-10 13:58
2010-11-10 13:49:09.958min ago 27.77 N 57.06 E 30 mb 5.1 SOUTHERN IRAN 2010-11-10 14:13
2010-11-10 13:09:24.21hr 38min ago 38.44 N 39.23 E 3 MD 2.6 EASTERN TURKEY 2010-11-10 13:18
2010-11-10 12:36:35.82hr 10min ago 37.04 N 36.18 E 6 MD 2.9 CENTRAL TURKEY 2010-11-10 13:11
2010-11-10 11:51:12.42hr 56min ago 39.90 N 28.88 E 21 MD 2.4 WESTERN TURKEY 2010-11-10 11:59
2010-11-10 11:43:43.53hr 03min ago 28.92 S 178.24 W 179 mb 5.2 KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION 2010-11-10 14:00
2010-11-10 11:05:55.83hr 41min ago 38.98 N 26.73 E 12 MD 2.7 NEAR THE COAST OF WESTERN TURKEY

www.emsc-csem.org...
edit on 10-11-2010 by zenius because: too tired



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by zenius
 



It was interesting that the theories which have been accepted so widely are based on so little fact and KNOWN conflicting information. I don't know how text books can outwardly state that the Pangea theory is how it all happened....and without so much as an explanation to why they came to that conclusion. I'm annoyed now.


You and me both, and the admission of the lies, cover-ups omissions etc just because things did not suit. Not a bit similar to climate change then!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's face it, the scientists are doing a very good job of enlightening us a to what big liars they are and how little they understand, yet at the same time look down upon us down long snooty noses as if we are some sort of dross. I have got to the stage now where anything that starts "Scientists have...." or "Scientists say...." pretty much gets binned.

Damn the lot of them to Hell and beyond with their trickery and their fawning for funding. It is now about how much can we earn now and not what can we find out.

:bash: :bnghd:
:shk:



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bkaust
 

Hmmm... I've been down to Mount Gambier in years gone by. Nice (smaller) town and lovely lake there in the caldera. When it changes to its deep blue colour it's really quite breathtaking. I didn't know it had been active so recently; the stuff I learned way back when in my Uni days was that it last erupted about 20,000 y.a., so if it's had one just 1400-odd years ago that really changes things a bit.

It's true that Australia's not so well prepared for natural disasters of this type, but their rarity kind of makes it understandable. The Newcastle quake back in Dec. 1989 was quite incredible, really, but the local authorities coped pretty well, considering. Hate to think how they'd manage if there were ever a big one in a populated area, though.

But don't get me wrong: I'm an Aussie and I know that everyone would pitch in and help because that's just our way, I'm just saying it would be a huge headache from a logistical perspective. Fortunately we have excellent military backup (and legislation in place to be able to call them in at very short notice), and they work in well with the emergency services. Now I might go a bit OT here but I hope the mods won't spit any dummies over it as it's still relevant in its way...

I saw some pretty awful stuff back in the dark days of the summer when we had Ash Wednesday. I lived near the Woodside Army Base in the Adelaide hills at the time and those soldiers were wonderful with helping out. In fact, pretty well everyone who could walk and was able to swing a wet wheat bag or use a shovel, or who could drive a truck or a tractor with a water tank behind out -- they all helped out.

I remember the lines of "Readymix" trucks filled with water that worked around the clock to carry water to needed areas, with the drivers risking their own lives to get through in some cases. Now, if you want an example of using ingenuity in a crisis, there's a good one. Cement mixer trucks to transport water... When they had the huge fires in Portugal a few years back I wrote to the Portuguese ambassador's office here in Prague and told them about this idea that we'd used in Australia, and got a nice reply from one of the staff there that they'd certainly pass it on, because moving water was their number-one problem.

In a disaster, everyone will pitch in, and if there are any scumbags who try looting they ought to be thrown in the fire, but that's a bit too OT I guess so I'll say no more on that.


As for a volcanic eruption that would be very bad news if it happened in the dry season. Just the bushfires it could set off would be pretty awful, let alone coping with the volcano's own ash and so forth.

Regarding the tremor in Qld: hadn't heard about that one. I'd take a guess and say the Glasshouse Mountains would be a likely region, though.

Mike

edit on 10/11/10 by JustMike because: tyP0s



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by SunDawg
 


Now here's a link to the same database and for the same mag range, but for the 20-year period from Nov 10, 1990 to Nov 9 2010:
Quakes mag 5-plus, past 20 years.

There were 31,486 in that time, which works out at 31,486/20 = 1574 per year.

So actually, the number of quakes of mag 5-plus in the past 12 months is a bit down on the longer-term average.


Mike, as has been pointed out to me and I already knew anyway USGS do not provide complete lists of earthquakes worldwide, even above 5mb.
I filtered that links data down to the rectangular co-oordinates I use to search Geonet NZ
Latitude: -32.056 (north) to -48.868 (south)
Longitude: 164.065 (east) to -176.197 (west)

I got 25 quakes above 5.0

yet in fact Geonet has 38

Unfortunately USGS pick and choose which quakes to list, and its not all about what magnitude scale, Mw, mb, or ML as they have some of each in that cut down list.

So based on New Zealand area alone they are only reporting 66% of earthquake events above 5.0

You can't draw conclusions form 66% of the data ie flawed information.



edit on 10-11-2010 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I knew that USGS deletes quakes in some parts of the US quite regularly (mainly some lower-mag cases in regions like Utah), or otherwise posts them rather late so they drop off the maps rather rapidly (like off-coast from Oregon on occasion), but this is a different kettle of fish entirely if they're being "selective" world-wide. That's quite an eye-opener.

Hmmm. It would be good to do a world-wide comparison on this. Does Geonet's database support searching events world-wide and over a longer period of time (eg 20 years)? If so, I'd like to see what it turns up.

By the way, here's something that's also odd: I input the same search area coordinates (ie that you supplied) into an NEIC search and it turned up 29 quakes of mag 5-plus, rather than the 25 you got. Still well below your Geonet figure, but I'm puzzled by the discrepancy. Far as I can see I've made no error with inputting the coordinates.

Here's the lin k to the search page with the coordinates, data and outputted list and so on.

Many thanks,

Mike

edit on 10/11/10 by JustMike because: I added some stuff.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Hi Mike, no I don't think so, but Australia does.

Links here to other world databases.

qvsdata.wordpress.com...

Trouble is that many of them feed into/use the NEIC/ANSS database. You have to be careful what you are looking at and make sure you pick local info.

Reminds me of the comment in an email to me where USGS said "of course New Zealand has hundreds more instruments to get readings from...." as an excuse as to why they did not list a 5.1.

The fact of the matter is that they have few few more as most then are attached to NZ in the IRIS networks and therefore feed into the NEIC at some point.

Then you have to add the fact that every organisation interprets the same data differently. EMSC tends on the whole to have higher magnitudes than USGS even for the same mag type.

Much of it boils down to software.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


No Geonet only do New Zealand, as far down as the Auckland Islands and north to Raoul Island.
If you use their search programme and don't put any co-ordinates in the boxes it defaults to those ones I mentioned. They go back to 1840, but it wasn't until 1870 that they start to list the magnitudes and the epicentre co-ordinates are into 2 decimal figures.
Heres the page magma.geonet.org.nz...
edit on 10-11-2010 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenius
reply to post by bkaust
 


Apparently there was a tremor in Queensland in the last week. I missed that one. Anyone know where it was centred?


If there was, then Geoscience Australia didn't pick it up, and they are pretty good at reporting any little wobble, even if it was a 1.0 mag

webmap.ga.gov.au...
www.ga.gov.au...



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
What???
USGS dont report all quakes and pick and choose? Is this right or have i totally missed something here?
Would someone please give me a run down please in idiot form thanks?
Also would appreciate any legit links for EQ's



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jazz10
 


Well that might be slightly unfair on them. Basically they 'say' they report down to 4.5, but actually that is not quite right because they report to 5 and often only down to 4.5 when there is a 'felt' report.

This is the USGS Earthquake Magnitude Policy which is definitely a bit of techno-speak!


The resulting round-off error occasionally leads to differences of 0.1 in the estimates of moment magnitude released by different groups


Read 0.5 or more sometimes and I have seen them as big as 1.5 mag different (only once mind)

If you look at their 7 day listing you will see it states:


Worldwide earthquakes with M4.5+ located by USGS and Contributing Agencies.
(Earthquakes with M2.5+ within the United States and adjacent areas.)


Took me a while to find this again: What they said in an email to me about this does not quite match up. Please forgive the complete details but there is no other way to show this as it was an email to me.


We locate and report on all earthquakes world wide of magnitude 5.0 and larger in one hour or less if possible. We do not locate earthquakes smaller than 4.0 outside the US unless they have caused significant damage. Earthquakes this small very rarely cause any damage at all.

Earthquakes smaller than 5.0 down to magnitude 4.0 are located as we have time and if we have enough data to locate them, regardless of where in the world they occur. Earthquakes occurring outside the US and smaller
than about magnitude 4.5 are difficult for the USGS to locate if there is not enough data. Most of the time there is not. Most of the aftershocks still occurring from the large New Zealand earthquake are in the low 4.0+ magnitude
range and therefore difficult for us to locate without data.

The magnitudes posted by the New Zealand web sites may be higher than ours due to different sets and amounts of data. Even though the New Zealand website locates an earthquake and reports a magnitude larger than 4.5 does not mean we have enough data to locate it or compute the same magnitude. Nor does it mean that our data will indicate it is larger than 5.0. The scientists in New Zealand have access to 100's of more earthquakes stations there than we have access to and are therefore able to locate many more of the smaller earthquakes than we are able to. For aftershocks smaller than about 4.5 we must wait for data to be sent to us from New Zealand. Data is not sent to us in real time or even on a daily basis.

If we don't have the event located, then we did not get/see the felt reports. Anything under mag 5.0 and above 4.0 we locate only if we are able and if we have enough data to locate it. If our systems do not locate it automatically, then we won't know it happened until we get local data.

One of the analysts did check and this earthquake is in our system. It looks like the WEL data for it has come in but we did not locate it ourselves. The IDC location puts it at about 4.6 which is still probably a little high. Because of this magnitude and the fact we didn't locate it in the first place, it most likely won't get located until it is in review for the PDE.


So under 5.0 only get done if they have time (!!)

Please allow me to pull some of this BS apart.

(1)The magnitudes posted by the New Zealand web sites may be higher than ours due to different sets and amounts of data.

Oh yes that will be the NZ data then which is fed into IRIS

(2)Even though the New Zealand website locates an earthquake and reports a magnitude larger than 4.5 does not mean we have enough data to locate it or compute the same magnitude.

Which means. Even though we use exactly the same data we don't get the same results.

(3)Nor does it mean that our data will indicate it is larger than 5.0.

Or at least not if we can possibly avoid it.

(4)The scientists in New Zealand have access to 100's of more earthquakes stations there than we have access to and are therefore able to locate many more of the smaller earthquakes than we are able to.

I have covered this before. For 100s read at best 5. Virtually all the NZ recorders are fed to IRIS and are real-time.
Here is the IRIS NZ page. Everything with a red R is real time

(5)Data is not sent to us in real time or even on a daily basis.
Odd as stated above it says on IRIS that it is real time. OK maybe a few minutes out but that is real time enough.

(6)One of the analysts did check and this earthquake is in our system. It looks like the WEL data for it has come in but we did not locate it ourselves. The IDC location puts it at about 4.6 which is still probably a little high.

Mm, so you did not look at the IRIS data then? 4.6 still too high (for a 5.1) - ah yes of course. The USGS has to be right. It is easy when you choose to ignore stuff.

(7)it most likely won't get located until it is in review for the PDE

If we can 'forget it' then we will



See the links in my signature. You have to pick and choose.

On second thoughts perhaps that was not too hard on them!
edit on 10/11/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Thanks appreciate it



new topics

top topics



 
123
<< 240  241  242    244  245  246 >>

log in

join