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: 47
123
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pixanomaly
Do you guys also accept volcano eruptions in this thread :-P


Nope! Only American Express and Master Card


The place for Volcanoes is in Volcano Watch but thanks for pointing it out anyway. I am sure people will enjoy the video link.

[edit on 21/3/2010 by PuterMan]




posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Found this whiles reading a link provided in another thread, not seen it posted in here as yet. Apologies if it has been & I missed it.

Here ya go news.discovery.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Lol - good one.

Truly interesting that the only precursors to the eruption were a couple of mag 2 quakes, although it had been swelling since the start of 2010...


"There was little increased seismic activity prior to the eruption," geophysicist Steinunn Jakobsdotter told local media, adding scientists had noted a few magnitude 2 tremors that were "not enough to tell us that an eruption was about to start."


link



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Magnitude 5.7
Date-Time Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 18:31:04 UTC
Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 02:31:04 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 36.334°S, 72.975°W
Depth 35 km (21.7 miles) set by location program
Region OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
Distances 55 km (35 miles) N of Concepcion, Chile
80 km (50 miles) WNW of Chillan, Chile
135 km (85 miles) NNW of Los Angeles, Chile
385 km (240 miles) SSW of SANTIAGO, Chile

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 11 km (6.8 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST=122, Nph=123, Dmin=532.1 km, Rmss=0.86 sec, Gp= 97°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)


Event ID us2010ucbb



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Magnitude 5.2 - TONGA REGION
2010 March 21 21:00:02 UTC

Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 21:00:02 UTC
Monday, March 22, 2010 at 09:00:02 AM at epicenter

Location
22.858°S, 175.460°W

Depth
76.9 km (47.8 miles)

Distances
191 km (119 miles) S (187°) from NUKU'ALOFA, Tonga
492 km (306 miles) SSW (198°) from Neiafu, Tonga
2762 km (1716 miles) WSW (253°) from PAPEETE, Tahiti, French Polynesia

earthquake.usgs.gov...

[edit on 21-3-2010 by berkeleygal]



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Earthquake Details
Magnitude 5.3
Date-Time Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 23:41:32 UTC
Monday, March 22, 2010 at 10:41:32 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 14.673°S, 167.097°E
Depth 99.2 km (61.6 miles)
Region VANUATU
Distances 95 km (60 miles) N of Luganville, Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu
365 km (225 miles) NNW of PORT-VILA, Efate, Vanuatu
460 km (285 miles) SSE of Lata, Santa Cruz Islands, Solomon Isl.
2040 km (1260 miles) NE of BRISBANE, Queensland, Australia

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 17.1 km (10.6 miles); depth +/- 7.8 km (4.8 miles)
Parameters NST= 79, Nph= 88, Dmin=969.6 km, Rmss=1.28 sec, Gp= 54°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)


Event ID us2010ucb5

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Chile cumulative update to 21st March inclusive.




posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Magnitude 5.6 (Preliminary magnitude — update expected within 15 minutes)
Date-Time Monday, March 22, 2010 at 01:00:42 UTC
Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 08:00:42 PM at epicenter

Location 16.336°S, 69.726°W
Depth 198 km (123.0 miles) set by location program
Region SOUTHERN PERU
Distances 105 km (65 miles) SSE (155°) from Juliaca, Peru
160 km (100 miles) NE (53°) from Moquegua, Peru
167 km (104 miles) W (276°) from LA PAZ, Bolivia
919 km (571 miles) ESE (122°) from LIMA, Peru

Location Uncertainty Error estimate not available
Parameters NST= 10, Nph= 10, Dmin=176.9 km, Rmss=0.98 sec, Gp=119°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=0
Source West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center/NOAA/NWS

Event ID at00921964



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Earthquake Details
Magnitude 3.7
Date-Time Monday, March 22, 2010 at 02:37:17 UTC
Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 09:37:17 PM at epicenter

Location 35.559°N, 96.721°W
Depth 1.2 km (~0.7 mile) (poorly constrained)
Region OKLAHOMA
Distances 9 km (5 miles) NNW (340°) from Prague, OK
11 km (7 miles) ESE (122°) from Sparks, OK
15 km (9 miles) WNW (293°) from Paden, OK
31 km (19 miles) NE (39°) from Shawnee, OK
74 km (46 miles) E (83°) from Oklahoma City, OK
307 km (191 miles) N (1°) from Dallas, TX

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 5.9 km (3.7 miles); depth +/- 9.9 km (6.2 miles)
Parameters NST= 41, Nph= 46, Dmin=77.9 km, Rmss=0.9 sec, Gp= 61°,
M-type="Nuttli" surface wave magnitude (mbLg), Version=6
Source U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center:
World Data Center for Seismology, Denver

Event ID us2010udad

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Already posted, sorry.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Phlynx]



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Magnitude 4.9 - SOUTH OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
2010 March 22 05:56:30 UTC

Magnitude 4.9
Date-Time

* Monday, March 22, 2010 at 05:56:30 UTC
* Monday, March 22, 2010 at 05:56:30 PM at epicenter

Location 26.501°S, 178.361°E
Depth 615.9 km (382.7 miles)
Region SOUTH OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
Distances 480 km (300 miles) NW of Raoul Island, Kermadec Islands
610 km (380 miles) NNW of L'Esperance Rock, Kermadec Islands
1200 km (740 miles) NNE of Auckland, New Zealand
1665 km (1040 miles) NNE of WELLINGTON, New Zealand
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 25 km (15.5 miles); depth +/- 17.2 km (10.7 miles)
Parameters NST= 23, Nph= 23, Dmin=476.9 km, Rmss=1.34 sec, Gp=133°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=7
Source

* USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID us2010udar



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Magnitude 4.7 - SOUTH OF PANAMA 2010 March 22 06:57:27 UTC

Monday, March 22, 2010 at 06:57:27 UTC
Monday, March 22, 2010 at 01:57:27 AM at epicenter

Location
7.918°N, 82.208°W

Depth
10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program

Distances
62 km (39 miles) SSE (157°) from David, Panama
137 km (85 miles) W (260°) from Santiago, Panama
157 km (98 miles) S (178°) from Bocas del Toro, Panama
307 km (191 miles) SE (138°) from SAN JOSE, Costa Rica

earthquake.usgs.gov...

[edit on 22-3-2010 by berkeleygal]



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
posted above

[edit on 22-3-2010 by kaleshchand]



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I am aware that there seems to be a general feeling that things are getting a bit 'bumpy' out there, but I don't think Planet Earth has hit any serious 'turbulence' yet. (Nor do I personally think she will - I will take my head out of the sand bucket and have a look later.
)

The large series of 5.0+ quakes in Chile this year is probably going to skew the figures for 2010, but I thought you might like to see the cumulative plot for 5.0+ quakes in the USGS database for the past year, i.e. from towards the end of March last year.



Obviously I am hoping that Chile will quieten down, and if it does then I would not say the trend was steeply up.

So for comparison here is the graph for 6.0+ for the past year.


And just for good measure here is the graph for 7.0+ for the past year.


When you compare this to the USGS average figures since 1900 you get this: (past 365 in brackets)

Magnitude Average Annually
8 and higher 1 (1) [1 was Chile]
7 - 7.9 17 (15) [0 were Chile - no there have been no 7.0-7.99 Chile]
6 - 6.9 134 (160) [17 were Chile since 01/01/2010]
5 - 5.9 1319 (1600) [Over 200 were Chile since 01/01/2010]

By comparison using the data I download (which just misses a few days in Jan 2009) the annual totals for 2009 look like this:

8.0+ 1
7.0 - 7.9 16
6.0 - 6.9 140
5.0 - 5.9 1400

These are just slightly different from the figures on the USGS page which are:

Magnitude 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
8.0 to 9.9 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 4 0 1 1
7.0 to 7.9 14 15 13 14 14 10 9 14 12 16 3
6.0 to 6.9 146 121 127 140 141 140 142 178 168 142 49
5.0 to 5.9 1344 1224 1201 1203 1515 1693 1712 2074 1768 1725 596

Just thought you might find this interesting and perhaps an argument against some of the doomsayers!!



[edit on 22/3/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 
I think the condition now might be right for a more bumpy road up north, close to and on US soil. Things seems to calm down around Chile. Still waiting for Peru. Not much there yet.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Love the graphs :-) While these are smaller quakes they are of importance.

MAP 3.8 2010/03/22 08:11:48 41.850 -126.053 10.0 148 km ( 92 mi) W of Brookings, OR

MAP 2.8 2010/03/22 03:47:01 42.012 -125.603 10.0 107 km ( 66 mi) WSW of Gold Beach, OR

2.4 2010/03/22 08:51:26 40.298 -124.406 20.1 11 km ( 7 mi) WSW of Petrolia, CA

Here is location map

and then, there is

5.1 2010/03/22 04:36:08 -17.577 -12.951 10.0 SOUTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE

map

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Anmarie96]



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Most impressed by these graphs.
It's so much easier to see the trends when it's presented this way. And as you say, they help to deflect some of the doomsayers, who even on several threads here on ATS are saying that the number of quakes has increased dramatically and this means that yadda yadda yadda...

I have had to get stitches in my tongue from biting it so hard lately. Some of you here might have been suffering the same affliction. On some threads, nothing we or anyone else might say in respect of the fact that long-term data does not show a dramatic increase in quake activity and that short-term data is much too variable to establish trends, has had much effect on the doom and gloom merchants or those who seem to hang on their every word.

It's a pity to see that such an attitude prevails in spite of all attempts to inform to the contrary, but if people need their disaster fix then I guess they won't be swayed. Okay, we might not be experts on the subject but at least we study a little and do more than just fall all over whatever comes up on the msm or good ol' webbot. (Bless its little cyber socks.) At least we know where to find some basic data and how to interpret it -- and to know that there is data, even!


What is most bothersome (to me, at least), is those on some threads who seem to want a massive increase in disasters for their own reasons, and who apparently have lost sight of the fact that disasters mean death, suffering and misery for many people. That is, they've lost sight of it if they ever really got it in the first place. They also seem to be living in a world where this bad stuff only ever happens to other people, whereas the bitter truth is that those people need not always be nameless and faceless, but could one day be themselves or their families and friends.


It's like they think they're watching a movie or something.

You know, we had a complaint on the Yellowstone thread a few days ago. A member said in so many words that it was "too long" and we should start a new thread so it would be on the main page on ATS. And that's what we're up against, we and many others here who actually want to improve our knowledge and learn from one another. It's this abhorrent idea that news is only important if it's on the front page of Yahoo! or CNN -- or at least scrolling across the bottom of the damned TV screen.

That's the sort of mentality that bothers me. "The thread's too long," says a member, "Start a new one." It's the Reader's Digest Condensed Book mentality -- an atrocious concept. Edit it down, take out the "uninteresting" stuff: I don't have time to read all that.

"War and Peace" in a comic book.

"Don't inform us, entertain us!"

"Don't give me data, give me disaster!"

People are entertained by disaster. It's packaged as entertainment, so cleverly that they even have theme music to go with a graphic, like CNN did with "The Haiti Earthquake" (somber tones playing in the background).

That kind of cynical direction and manipulation by TV stations sickens me.

This thread is about earthquakes, about reporting where they happen and discussing their possible ramifications. People who want "entertainment" will doubtless be bored to tears by this thread. We don't predict gloom and doom and say that (insert Deity's name) is coming soon because there was a mag 4.4 in California (and yes, that's been claimed on a thread here on ATS), but we do quite correctly recommend that people in possible high-risk regions take precautions. That's good horse sense. Berkeley Gal knows. She's told us about the need to be prepared.

I'm even pretty well prepared where I live, and we haven't had a quake over mag 5 in this old city's 1,000-plus years of recorded history.

Does anyone see what I'm getting at? One of the few reasons I have stayed with ATS is because here, there are people who use their good sense and don't get taken in by every absurd and sometimes even impossible prediction of impending disaster.

There was the one about a year ago by some guy who joined here to tell us that a psychic he knew (who was always right!) had had a dream in which there was high magnitude 9 quake off the coast of China which sent a tsunami many miles inland and killed -- well I can't even recall how many people. I recall commenting about its unlikelihood, and also stated my humble opinion on the "An Experiment in Alternative Methods in Earthquake Prediction" thread (another non-doom-and-gloom thread which has therefore had few trolls) that not only was this quake incredibly unlikely but that it wouldn't happen within the stated time frame.

Obviously, it didn't happen. But we had members who were seriously upset by this. They were afraid of what else might happen in other places, for example. It was very hard to convince people that most likely, the quake wouldn't happen anyway, and that the OP was just trawling for new customers for his alternative magazine.

I apologize for this long and probably meandering post. In simple terms, I'd like to say thank you to all of you who have kept your heads squarely on your shoulders, so to speak, who have not run around like Chicken Little and screamed that the sky is falling. I certainly am no genius and don't claim to know a whole lot, and you have helped me more than you might realize. You and many others here on ATS. I prefer knowledge to ignorance and it galls me how ignorant I still am, so when I talk about the apparent ignorance of others please don't get me wrong: very often, I'm still a pot calling a kettle black, and yes, I know it. Which is why I'm glad to be put right when need be.

Sure, I enjoy a laugh, like all of you. I also like some entertainment. But seeing images of real death, real destruction and real human misery, even on my TV screen and not at first hand, does not entertain me and it never has.

Most often, it moves me to tears.

About earthquakes: I think I've said this before on another thread or two, but for me, seismic activity is something like the weather. I believe there are cause-and-effect relationships, but it does not have to mean that the greater causes the lesser, as in the case of "dynamic triggering" that has been observed and acknowledged by science. No, I feel that we need to find the "butterfly in Beijing" effect in all this. Okay, it's only an intuitive notion and I cannot provide empirical data for it, but I believe it's there, in its own way, and it might be one of the keys to our deeper understanding.

The trick is seeing the connections and I don't claim that I can. It took meteorologists literally centuries to develop a fair understanding of weather's multi-layered and complex interrelationships, and most "weather" happens within a single medium. Quakes could be multi-layered in terms of their energy interchange and release, and the time factors may also work on several levels. I suspect that we are literally only scratching the surface of understanding all that at this time.

And that's why I follow earthquakes and even try to predict them from time to time -- on the appropriate thread, I mean. Like you, I'm not doing this to make money (as I have no website and am not releasing a book or DVD), nor to get a "following" or be "famous" (as very few know who I really am and that suits me just fine), but simply to try and understand this world of ours a little more, and maybe, just maybe... One day we and others of like mind, working together, can use what we have learned to predict these seismic disasters and alleviate some of that terrible suffering.

Thank you for reading.

Mike



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


What an excellent post

How true that is for all the forums.

I enjoyed your ramble thank you.

Elf



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
MAGNITUDE: 5.9 LUZON-PHILIPINES
Date-Time Monday, March 22, 2010 at 19:58:15 UTC
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 03:58:15 AM at epicenter

Location 18.561°N, 120.787°E
Depth 37 km (23.0 miles) set by location program
Region LUZON, PHILIPPINES
Distances 41 km (26 miles) NNE (28°) from Laoag, Luzon, Philippines
198 km (123 miles) NW (324°) from Ilagan, Luzon, Philippines
239 km (149 miles) N (4°) from Baguio, Luzon, Philippines
439 km (273 miles) N (358°) from MANILA, Philippines

earthquake.usgs.gov...

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Austria]



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 

Thank you, Elf.

I hadn't intended to write such a novel but sometimes things just bubble up and we have to say them, you know.

reply to post by Austria
 

You are too quick for me, Austria! I was writing up a post for this quake and then checked and saw you'd done one already! Good work!

Thankfully it's not a huge quake, but it's still a bit worrisome, being only 35 km from Laoag. But it's over 40 km deep, which is much better than if it were very shallow. I hope that the people there are okay.

EDIT: Still less than 1 hour since the quake struck. Just checked the wire services and nothing particular being reported yet. Only that the quake hit and ones of this magnitude can cause "considerable damage". However they don't have to; it's a matter of local factors.

Mike



[edit on 22/3/10 by JustMike]




top topics



 
123
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join