Quake Watch 2010

reply to post by SteveWard3928


Hi Steven and Sherry, Thank you for you post! - Also to let you know, you can fine tune this feature even further - certain area that have many smaller quakes like US you can change the parameters for there and different parameters for other places. so notice for US 3.0 and above while on a different continent say 5.5 and above. or, however you like it - Nice notification put out by Them.

reply to post by PuterMan


Greetings Earthlings. I have been reading posts for a couple of weeks now on the recommendation of a friend. I have a VERY basic knowledge of plate tectonics. My post is regarding the movement of the South American plate in relation to PuterMans post. I am aware that the oceanic crust will slide under the continental crust because of less density, however, if subduction explains the previous statement then why would it not be possible for the continental crust to move on its own, in any given direction including over top of oceanic crust?

reply to post by Anmarie96


I will definitely need to look into how they measure the 'subduction'. For example I recall from memory that the plate below the Nacza (Antarctic) is supposed bumping South America a a rate of 20mm a year. At the top of the plate it is around 80 mm and the South Sandwich Islands are also about 80mm - in the opposite direction. (My apologies if I have remembered these wrong)

Now, a movement 'of the plates' in the earthquake needs to be explained as if for example Conception as a town was moved 10 ft westwards, and other areas were not, there must presumably be some very large gullies somewhere! There must also be some effect on the westward side. What happened to the 10ft that was displaced, or was this just a smaller surface layer sliding over bedrock and not actually the plates moving as was stated. Sorry I am just thinking out loud here.

• They measured the one going west, but how do they measure the convergence? Is there a GPS on the sea bed? Or for example is it on Robinson Crusoe?
  
• Then of course how does a GPS get it's reference.
  
• From a satellite yes, but how does the satellite know where it is? Does the satellite remain in a geostationary orbit for ever? (No)
  
• How does degradation of orbit and drift affect things and over what period of time.
  
• How does the addition of cosmic material to the earth's surface affect things if at all? Have you ever seen an archaeological dig a current ground level? No, I thought not.
  
• If the earth was expanding would you actually see the movement in the GPS? As it expanded so the lines of longitude would change. This goes back to what is the base reference.
  
• Is ice cream good for you
  

Your answers on a postcard please.

And a final additional thought. The Galapagos Islands.

Lying north of the Galapagos Island archipelago, the Galapagos Spreading Center exists at the boundary of two tectonic plates, the Nazca Plate to the south and the Cocos Plate to the north. This jagged Z-shaped rift runs east to west, and is home to many geologic features, including a region with a hotspot to the east, and hundreds of seamounts to the west.

Scientists know that the GSC is an area of extension—meaning that in between the two separating plates, lava flows are slowly creating new sea floor. They also know that the rugged terrain to the west, filled with seamounts and other topographical highs, is different than the flatter, more homogenous landscape found in the east. But they're unsure how the GSC's varied features have occurred and how they relate to each other.

From the article posted earlier. Am I reading this wrong? The plates are North and South and the rift runs East/West. But the features are East/West? Whatever!

So here we have an area the is pushing INTO the Nacza plate, yet the plate is moving East under pressure from the Pacific Plate. So is it twisting? In theory at least the merge should move South West, yet they show the convergence as more towards South East.

Does anyone actually have a map that marks the movement at ALL the plate boundaries because I have never seen one. I have been looking at this for some time now and there seem to me to be so many discrepancies.

[edit on 25/3/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by triplph10


I suppose that should be possible, but it is in that area that all the melt happens as Anmarie pointed out so..........................

Run! She is going to blow

I don't know. We need someone who understands plate tectonics but who is NOT a scientist preferably, i.e. someone with an open mind.

reply to post by PuterMan


You state: a town was moved 10 ft westwards, and other areas were not, there must presumably be some very large gullies somewhere!

Now, - is there such a thing as - um - solid liquefaction? or liquefaction occurring just underground that floats the topsoil to move said things - and would these be able to move because of the jolt and rip in the earth created a void? - Off the top of my head of course. - but, seams plausible.

* Frozen Yogurt is better for you!

Wise guy

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Anmarie96]

4.9 ECUADOR

Date-Time

* Friday, March 26, 2010 at 01:56:38 UTC
* Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 08:56:38 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 1.105°S, 78.186°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region ECUADOR

Distances 50 km (30 miles) ENE of Ambato, Ecuador
80 km (50 miles) NE of Riobamba, Ecuador
105 km (65 miles) SSE of QUITO, Ecuador
145 km (90 miles) SE of Santo Domingo de los Colorados, Ecuador



5.2 TONGA

Date-Time

* Friday, March 26, 2010 at 05:33:12 UTC
* Friday, March 26, 2010 at 06:33:12 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 18.382°S, 173.234°W
Depth 34 km (21.1 miles) (poorly constrained)
Region TONGA

Distances 85 km (50 miles) ENE of Neiafu, Tonga
275 km (170 miles) SSE of Hihifo, Tonga
370 km (230 miles) NE of NUKU'ALOFA, Tonga
2355 km (1470 miles) NNE of Auckland, New Zealand

[edit on 26-3-2010 by MoorfNZ]

I'm copying over a post from my Washington State thread so it'll have a better chance of getting viewed.

PuterMan, hoping you might have an opinion. On the seismos I have changed them to show the 24 hr grid.
Other post:

So activity has picked up here today and there are some wierd signatures in the surrounding areas of a 3.2 quake in a location you don't typically see them.

Here is a list of quakes for Washington.

Check out these siesmos from that area:

WOLL

WRD

EPH

DAVN

TUCA

LOC

BRV

DDRF

Here is a link to the whole SITE

It looks like LOC or TUCA are the closest to is, but I curious about all of these...some wierd signatures.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by westcoast]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by westcoast]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by westcoast]

Philippines registers quake and claims no damage.quake< br />
no damage, no 200,000 deaths and they want to keep it that way. No thank you to relief efforts, no death by relief.

These better not move further north!!!!!

MAP 5.1 2010/03/26 09:36:57 -1.331 -15.853 10.0 NORTH OF ASCENSION ISLAND

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

Location map

reply to post by westcoast


Hi westcoast. I will take a look, but it may be a while before I respond. I have the details of the seismos but I need to get the plots in UTC.

I will get back to you later, but it is a lovely day here and I need to get some veggies planted!! Got to have supplies for when it all goes wrong!

Edit: Just a quick note. UW.LOC.EHZ is located a Locke Island. I found a really interesting pdf file. Hope that download words. That should keep you out of mischief while I plant my spuds!

Edit: Can't get away from this darned thing. I am turning it off in a minute or I will never get anything done.

Very very brief analysis: All or most of those are in an area of farming land and/or industrial processing and the signatures look like cultural noise. Some of them will be showing an earthquake 3.2 at 22:31 UTC and these are shown on the map below.



I may carry this on later, but basically what I am saying is there is nothing of concern here that I can see immediately.

[edit on 26/3/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by PuterMan


I don't know, if you where looking for something like that:

upload.wikimedia.org...

I think you have to loose the concept of rigid plates. Think like a film of dry paint floating ontop of still fluid paint. If you move one below the other and the plates stick, the top plate will be bent in circeles upward around the sticking point. Much like waves arround an impact of a stone. When sthe slip then occours the plate can strech out again.
(The survace over the stuck point will then of course move west in this case)
This will happen without cracks as long as the plates elasticity makes it possible.
Underneath the plates the Magma has to move a lot hence the connection to vulcanic activity.
This is about How I get the mechanics behind it.

reply to post by solosister


Thanks very much indeed for that. It is still is not detailed enough for my liking, however it does show that the movement in the Chile quake was the reverse of the plates normal movement.

I will digest the rest of your post later and get back to you.

reply to post by PuterMan

for more detail follow the link in the picture or this, and there is allready to much for me, but might be a treasure trove for you.

sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov...

have fun

Earthquake Details
Magnitude 2.5
Date-Time Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 22:43:10 UTC
Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 06:43:10 PM at epicenter

Location 33.743°N, 82.477°W
Depth 5 km (3.1 miles) set by location program
Region GEORGIA, USA
Distances 6 km (4 miles) S (181°) from Lincolnton, GA
23 km (14 miles) WSW (239°) from Plum Branch, SC
24 km (15 miles) E (88°) from Washington, GA
54 km (34 miles) NW (309°) from Augusta, GA
178 km (111 miles) E (90°) from Atlanta, GA

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 9.8 km (6.1 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST= 7, Nph= 7, Dmin=99.1 km, Rmss=0.93 sec, Gp= 90°,
M-type="Nuttli" surface wave magnitude (mbLg), Version=6
Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)


Event ID us2010ugbs

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

reply to post by solosister


Wow, thanks. Definitely will have a play with that later.

Line 2 because I have to go digging and planting.

6.2 2010/03/26 14:52:10 -28.010 -70.310 59.0 ATACAMA, CHILE

can not be a aftershock

Chile hit by 3 quakes, (call them aftershocks if you will)

Magnitude: 5.7
Mercalli scale: 6
Date-Time [UTC]: 26 March, 2010 at 14:52:03 UTC
Local Date/Time: Friday, March 26, 2010 at 14:52 in the afternoon at epicenter
Location: 27° 58.200, 70° 33.600
Depth: 2 km (1.24 miles)
Region: South America
Country: Chile
Distances: 69.59 km (43.24 miles) of Vallenar, Region de Atacama
Source: RSOE-EMSC
Generated Tsunami: Not or no data!
Damage: Not or not data!

_____________________________________________________________

Magnitude: 5.7
Mercalli scale: 6
Date-Time [UTC]: 26 March, 2010 at 14:52:07 UTC
Local Date/Time: Friday, March 26, 2010 at 14:52 in the afternoon at epicenter
Location: 28° 2.580, 70° 39.780
Depth: 36.00 km (22.37 miles)
Region: South America
Country: Chile
Distances: 59.44 km (36.93 miles) of Vallenar, Region de Atacama
Source: USGS-RSOE
Generated Tsunami: Not or no data!
Damage: Not or not data!

_____________________________________________________________


Magnitude: 6.2
Mercalli scale: 7
Date-Time [UTC]: 26 March, 2010 at 14:52:10 UTC
Local Date/Time: Friday, March 26, 2010 at 14:52 in the afternoon at epicenter
Location: 28° 0.600, 70° 18.600
Depth: 59.00 km (36.66 miles)
Region: South America
Country: Chile
Distances: 71.59 km (44.48 miles) of Copiapo, Region de Atacama
Source: USGS-RSOE
Generated Tsunami: Not or no data!
Damage: Not or not data!



Two 5.7's followed by a 6.2

6,2 is not in the zone of the 8.8 eartquake

reply to post by solosister


WOW - Thank you for that!!!! Tons of information contained there in.

Puterman check this out! Hereis one of the links contained in the solosister's link. Lots of good links in that post!

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Anmarie96]

reply to post by PuterMan


Thanks....I knew you could put it all into a good visual. That document on Handford is HUGE. You're right, it'll make for some good late night reading. I actually went to the Hanford training facility (HAMMER) last year for Hazmat training. Quite an interesting place.

Back to the quakes....the info on the 10-ft shift is amazing, and I am suprised that we aren't seeing MORE quakes in that whole region, just based on that finding alone.

It also, as you point out, raising some more concern about the surrounding volcanic geography. How can it NOT have an affect? I guess that question is if it will be a rapid, violent one or one that will take several thousand years to play out. (I guess that would still be considered fast if you consider the age of those mountains!)