It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 27
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by Anmarie96
and reply to post by freetree64

I do not know if I can join, but I did post earlier in Whats going on at yellowstone? that I was worried that the 8.8 quake and all the aftershocks would generate so much stress further up north on the Nazca Plate that we might get another big one, further up north. I was thinking that several "smaller" ones, traveling north along the fault would be better since they obviously would release build up stress along the way.

If you look at several years of historical data, you might also get an idea how things developed before. And what happened before, most likely would happen again.

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by Roald

Small quakes have not been proven to release energy and stop a big quake, in fact many seismologists/geologists think the opposite.

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by berkeleygal

Now, Now - don't go and do That!! - You might scare the children!!! - but, while your at it - wanna give me a visual on Old Faithful erupting magma instead of water. - That's what I get when i click the web cam - same difference

Sorry, I couldn't resist

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Anmarie96]

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by Anmarie96

Let me dust off the 3d drawing programs and see if I can!

Might not be a boring evening anymore

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by Roald

You were thinking Peru if I remember correctly. I myself have different thoughts which I have also posted. The beauty of debate :-) Any who - I'm thinking much more farther north than Peru. As someone recently said - Mother Earth failed math lol, and I would imagine history and a few other courses as well as she really doesn't care about what happened before. - she has her own agenda - Best regards with the utmost respect Roald.

I must go find that thing now that I can't find on the USGS or any other website = my bed - Peace Out

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 11:12 PM
Quake in Missouri (small 2.6) - is this a "usual" spot - can't remember seeing on eQuake before. New Madrid area, isn't it?


* Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 03:50:18 UTC
* Tuesday, March 09, 2010 at 09:50:18 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 36.123°N, 89.735°W
Depth 8.5 km (5.3 miles)

* 9 km (6 miles) SW (224°) from Caruthersville, MO
* 10 km (6 miles) ENE (64°) from Steele, MO
* 11 km (7 miles) NE (38°) from Cooter, MO
* 114 km (71 miles) N (11°) from Memphis, TN
* 282 km (175 miles) S (171°) from St. Louis, MO

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 0.8 km (0.5 miles)
Parameters NST= 32, Nph= 38, Dmin=3 km, Rmss=0.04 sec, Gp= 61°,
M-type=duration magnitude (Md), Version=B

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:04 AM
reply to post by MoorfNZ

Yes, it's in that region. They get their little quakes these days with a fair amount of regularity. As long as they don't get ones like they had about 198-199 years ago (1812 and 1811) then we can be fairly happy.

I read somewhere* that some scientists theorize that region has now gone more-or-less inactive and possibly the old fault there won't produce other ones like it did back then, but I'm dubious about that. Two centuries is not long in terms of what these things can do.

*Early morning here and getting ready for work. If anyone wants the reference I'm sure I can find it. Later.



PS Someone a page or so back asked about a quake at the junction off Cal, wondering about it being so shallow. (Only 0.8 km deep.) I can comment that such shallow ones are not all that unusual there. Very deep ones in that region tend to be unusual, actually.

BTW remember the other day we were wondering over that really deep quake near the Marianas? (450 km deep.) I did a search of the NEIC data base for all quakes world-wide in the past decade, mag 5 or bigger, and there were around 17,000. Then I set parameters for quakes 450 km or deeper and got around 470 or so. (Just recalling the figures.) So we're looking at around 2.5 to 3% of mag 5-plus quakes being that deep over a longer period. Interesting, that. It's more than I suspected it would be. Works out at nearly one per week.


posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 01:02 AM
3.1 in Oklahoma and a 4.9 in alaska

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:31 AM
Does anyone know if the last few big Earthquakes happened during the huge solar filament occurrence?

Just wondering if possibly they could somehow be tied in to the big recent quakes.

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by JustMike

"BTW remember the other day we were wondering over that really deep quake near the Marianas? (450 km deep.) I did a search of the NEIC data base for all quakes world-wide in the past decade, mag 5 or bigger, and there were around 17,000. Then I set parameters for quakes 450 km or deeper and got around 470 or so. (Just recalling the figures.) So we're looking at around 2.5 to 3% of mag 5-plus quakes being that deep over a longer period. Interesting, that. It's more than I suspected it would be. Works out at nearly one per week."

Thanks for looking into that, Mike. I was surprised that there were so many also. One a weeks seems alot, but percentage wise it is not so big. What area experienced the majority of the quakes? Thank you for efforts.

ps sorry I stuffed up the quote part above, Mike.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by zenius]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:44 AM
reply to post by whoshotJR

Take a deep breath: Believe it or not, scientists are not always right. We really put them up on a pedestal, though, don't we? We quote scientists as experts, buy things if they're "scientifically proven" to work better.

Remember the following words:

640Kb ought to be enough for anyone. Bill Gates.

Aerial flight is one of that class of problems with which man will never be able to cope. Simon Newcomb.

Atomic energy might be as good as our present-day explosives, but it is unlikely to produce anything very much more dangerous. Winston Churchill.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. Lord Kelvin. British mathematician and physicist.
Maybe I should say as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe? All intelligent thoughts have already been thought; what is necessary is only to try to think them again.

At the front lines of scientific research, results are often subject to interpretation, especially in fields that are inherently observational. In particular, earthquake studies--including seismology, geology, and tectonophysics--rarely dwell in unequivocal results.

Science is messy. For every step forward on the road to truth, there are two steps in some other direction. And the way toward earthquake prediction, the Holy Grail of seismology, is littered with the dashed hopes of those who have failed.

There was, for example, the famous “Palmdale bulge,” a so-called warping of the San Andreas Fault in the Mojave Desert, reported by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1976 as a sign of an impending quake. It turned out to be an error in measurement.

And there was the USGS again in the late 1980s, armed with the information that magnitude 6 earthquakes struck Parkfield, Calif., every 22 years on average and boldly predicting a moderate quake on the San Andreas Fault near the town by 1992. The quake, when it finally came in 2004, was 37 years after the previous one. It became a famous example of the “irregular regularity” of earthquakes.

reply to post by Anmarie96

Yes, I was talking about Peru, but was also talking about the triple junction between The Nazca plate, Cocos Plate and Caribbean Plate in another part of the thread. But yes, I still believe that we would get at least an M8 on the Nazca Plate in Peru. But less than M8 if it just jump over Peru and go further north.

Anyway, let us do as you state in your signature.

Think outside the box

[edit on 10/3/2010 by Roald]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 06:53 AM
MAP 5.5 2010/03/10 12:20:59 -33.638 -72.388 35.0 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:12 AM
Chile cumulative update to Minught 09/03/2010 (European) 03/09/2010 (Mercan)

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:14 AM
Magnitude 4.5 - Region HOKKAIDO, JAPAN REGION


* Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 12:50:02 UTC
* Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 09:50:02 PM at epicenter

Location 42.131°N, 141.172°E
Depth 104.4 km (64.9 miles)


* 54 km (34 miles) NE (42°) from Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan
* 107 km (66 miles) S (188°) from Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
* 149 km (93 miles) NNE (15°) from Aomori, Honshu, Japan
* 729 km (453 miles) N (9°) from TOKYO, Japan

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 13.8 km (8.6 miles); depth +/- 8.5 km (5.3 miles)
Parameters NST= 14, Nph= 14, Dmin=165.1 km, Rmss=0.51 sec, Gp=108°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=7

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:50 AM
Reports on Twitter of people feeling a quake in the Kosovo and Skopje regions - can't see anything being reported on RSOE or eQuake - anyone seen any event report for this?


It's a 5.0.

So far just a foreign language report:

epicntr, 43 km away from the capital Prishtina, more than 20 km from damage reported yet

[edit on 10-3-2010 by MoorfNZ]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 09:02 AM
I think you missed this one

10.03.2010 08:07:24.9 7.15 N 34.36 W 5.2 Central Mid Atlantic Ridge

guess the time is gmt

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by Anmarie96
I would like to answer you a bit more in detail this time

You know as well as I do that the South America's west coast is a segment of the circum-Pacific seismic belt, where more than two-thirds of the world's large-magnitude earthquakes occur.

The subduction of the Nazca plate under southern Chile has a history of producing massive earthquakes including the largest ever recorded on earth, the moment magnitude 9.5 1960 Valdivia earthquake.

The rugged Andes and offshore Peru-Chile trench have been the breeding ground for devastating earth disturbances for centuries past, and my Peru's earthquake annals dates back over 400 years, to 1553. But, unfortunately, historical earthquakes in Central Peru show a complex repeat pattern making it difficult to identify which particular area that will be affected in the future, but do show a pattern that looks like a tail of Chile.

I could give you a list over quakes, but the list would be to long.

Let us first of all agree that the type of earthquake that we see outside Chile is related to the collision of oceanic and continental plates. And that it is the Nazca plate that are subducted under the South American plate so that a deep ocean trench is produced.

Secondly, let us also keep in mind that the quakes in the Peru - Chile trench are spread on top of and north of triple junction that no one seems to notice, the Nazca plate, the South American plate and the Antarctic Plate.

The triple junction region appears to me to have formed the southern limit of co seismic rupture during the great 1960 Valdivia Mw = 9.1 Chile earthquake.

I also take into consideration that the absolute motion of the Nazca Plate has been calibrated at 3.7 cm/yr east motion (88°), some of the fastest absolute motion of any tectonic plate.

I know that Peru is situated along the boundary of two tectonic plates: the Nazca Plate and the South American Plate. And that the interface between these two plates is located near the Peruvian coast.

If you get a good map over the tectonic plates with detailed movement and speed, then I guess you will see that the Antarctic Plate are being "twisted" a bit. So also when it comes to the Nazca plate.

Maybe because of what we know about plate tectonics, past history, and geophysical data you will understand why I strongly believe that the next "big" ones would move from Chile to Peru.

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 10:20 AM
MAP 4.7 2010/03/10 13:17:17 51.381 -173.523 35.0 103 km ( 64 mi) SSE of Atka, AK
MAP 4.0 2010/03/10 13:05:45 60.244 -152.935 132.8 75 km ( 47 mi) WNW of Happy Valley, AK
MAP 4.9 2010/03/10 08:05:27 51.529 -173.516 57.2 89 km ( 55 mi) SSE of Atka, AK
MAP 4.9 2010/03/10 06:11:34 51.467 -173.482 44.0 96 km ( 59 mi) SSE of Atka, AK
MAP 1.8 2010/03/10 05:32:17 64.840 -149.012 2.5 28 km ( 17 mi) N of Four Mile Road, AK
MAP 2.5 2010/03/10 02:47:35 60.688 -147.320 15.2 40 km ( 25 mi) WSW of Tatitlek, AK
MAP 2.0 2010/03/10 01:56:43 63.233 -151.103 0.0 94 km ( 59 mi) SE of Lake Minchumina, AK
MAP 1.7 2010/03/10 00:16:12 61.881 -150.252 10.2 19 km ( 12 mi) NW of Willow, AK
MAP 1.3 2010/03/10 00:15:30 65.001 -147.333 0.0 15 km ( 9 mi) ENE of Fox, AK

Roald, I do not disagree with anything that you have posted other than "the next big ones" I think a better term would be "one of the next big ones" omho.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Anmarie96]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:02 PM
Was wondering where my post for last night's Chile quake went??? I posted it here and in the Chile thread, and it's nowhere to be found... curious

It was posted at the same time as this one....????

posted on 9-3-2010 @ 09:05 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:

Inland this time, it looks like....

Earthquake Details
Magnitude 5.4
Date-Time Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 02:41:49 UTC
Tuesday, March 09, 2010 at 11:41:49 PM at epicenter

Location 36.855°S, 72.646°W
Depth 35 km (21.7 miles) set by location program
Distances 36 km (22 miles) E (94°) from Concepcion, Chile
178 km (110 miles) SSW (209°) from Talca, Chile
211 km (131 miles) N (1°) from Temuco, Chile
414 km (257 miles) SSW (205°) from SANTIAGO, Chile

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 7.9 km (4.9 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST=115, Nph=115, Dmin=467.9 km, Rmss=0.78 sec, Gp= 97°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=7
Source U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center:
World Data Center for Seismology, Denver

[edit on 10-3-2010 by freetree64]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 12:24 PM
Look's like California is relieving stress all up and down the fault line today, one right after another, I hope it's letting pressure off....

new topics

top topics

<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in