Update: 5.3 quake removed. 4.8 just south of Yellowstone confirmed.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Earthquake Details

* This is a computer-generated message -- this event has not yet been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 5.3
Date-Time

* Thursday, August 05, 2010 at 00:04:50 UTC
* Wednesday, August 04, 2010 at 06:04:50 PM at epicenter

Location 41.800°N, 112.111°W
Depth 25.4 km (15.8 miles)
Region UTAH
Distances

* 1 km (1 miles) SSE (157°) from Fielding, UT
* 3 km (2 miles) ESE (106°) from Riverside, UT
* 9 km (5 miles) NNE (30°) from Garland, UT
* 118 km (73 miles) N (351°) from Salt Lake City, UT

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 5.6 km (3.5 miles); depth +/- 6.4 km (4.0 miles)
Parameters NST= 10, Nph= 10, Dmin=21 km, Rmss=0.47 sec, Gp=238°,
M-type=duration magnitude (Md), Version=1
Source

* University of Utah Seismograph Stations


Event ID uu00007103

earthquake.usgs.gov...


Updated link for WY quake

[edit on 5-8-2010 by webpirate]




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Just caught that too a few minutes ago...beat me to it. Hmm....what's going on up there?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
There were 2 quakes initially reported. The one north of Salt Lake apparently was the same one as the one East of Jackson, WY. Downgraded to 4.8, but just 100 miles or so from Yellowstone Park.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by webpirate]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
[edit on 4-8-2010 by webpirate]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Here is the data from the quake in Wyoming:

Earthquake Details

* This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 4.8
Date-Time

* Thursday, August 05, 2010 at 00:04:18 UTC
* Wednesday, August 04, 2010 at 06:04:18 PM at epicenter

Location 43.653°N, 110.279°W
Depth 5 km (3.1 miles) set by location program
Region WYOMING
Distances 45 km (25 miles) ENE of Jackson, Wyoming
55 km (35 miles) WNW of Dubois, Wyoming
95 km (60 miles) NNW of Pinedale, Wyoming
530 km (330 miles) WNW of CHEYENNE, Wyoming
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 4.2 km (2.6 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST= 97, Nph= 97, Dmin=44 km, Rmss=1.49 sec, Gp= 29°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source

* USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID us2010zpac

earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Well here is a screen shot of what is still up at this point...
Did that mean that first one didn't happen, or
[img]http://docs.google.com...[/img] maybe it is under analysis?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
It means they looked over the data and found it was incorrect so they removed it. Waves from a quake can go a very long ways and it is sometimes hard to judge the initial quake right off the bat from what the computers spit out.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by breakonthrough9
 


It was probably the same quake. I noticed the times were almost exactly the same for both quakes. There was probably one station that recorded a stronger quake but in Utah. It appears the actual quake was just south of Yellowstone Park Wyoming.

It's outside the borders or the park, but only about 100 miles or so South of it judging by the map.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Not a lot of detail available in Google Earth for that location, but it appears to be in the middle of a ridge in the Teton range.

Maybe 100KM from Yellowstone, although I had to estimate using my fingers and the scale on the map. (Google maps wasn't quite up to giving me those directions.)



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Does this mean Yellowstone is awakening from its hiatus?
The dry spell over?or does it have more sinister implications...ie the BIG ONE commin!



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
It means we had a nice CME.......


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Maybe. There were 2 small quakes, a 1.2 Sunday and a 1.1 Monday. Other than that there haven't been any quakes over 0.9 for about 2 weeks.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Wow this is somewhat vindicating. I strongly believe the earthquake today was caused by the CME that hit the Earth last night. Not that I had hoped for one, but an insurgence of charged protons is bound to cause some sort of seismic event.

It seems to me, that molten rock would be highly effected by a positive proton charge. Eyjafjallajokull could let another large eruption out as a result.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 7minds
 

Except that the solar protons and electrons don't make it through the atmosphere. They get neutralized when they fall out of the ionosphere after creating that nice light show up north.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 7minds
 


There have been multiple much larger quakes today than this one.

A 6.4 and 7.0 in PNG.
A 6.0 south of Fiji that generated a local tsunami.
A 6.0 off the East coast of Russia
A 5.4 and a 6.4 in the Aleutian Islands that was given a tsunami information statement.

Several other 5.0's or above also.

Quite a bit of strong quakes, especially in the Pacific ring. Not extremely unusual, but still a few more than normal.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by webpirate]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What if.... because of climate change we have more CO2 in the air and the cosmic rays interacting with the CO2 has some effect that causes more earthquakes in areas with high C02 concentration at that time of high cosmic rays? You are not guaranteed an earthquake but its more likely to happen.

Disprove that one



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 

Do you think it would be difficult to locate similar "clusters" in which there was no geomagnetic activity?
From a recent article:

When it is considered that the aftershocks are also included in the number of earthquakes which have been taken into the comparison, in the area within the given coordinates, there is no finding that shows that the earthquakes occur as a result of a triggering under the effect of geomagnetic storm. In order to mention such a finding, more number of earthquakes should occur with percentages that correspond to geomagnetic storms. This is not verified by the results.

www.ciencias.unal.edu.co...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I didn't say they were related. I was just making an observation about quakes today. I even said the clusters today were not unusual. Maybe a few more than on a normal day, but they do occur quite frequently.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 

Sorry.
Since you were replying to 7minds I must have misunderstood.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I think there have definitely been some aftershocks that aren't showing up on the map.

quake.utah.edu...

Looks like maybe a 3.x around 1:21 UTC. (a while ago, now.)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join