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 2011

page: 130
<< 127  128  129    131  132  133 >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

Well I started all the quake tracking for my own satisfaction, there wasn't anything like my maps and KML and text files openly out there where you could see what happened that day.

It interests me to see the other quakes that come out when they update their data, I don't know if anyone else is interested or even knows it happens.
I get about 30-50 views per day consistantly, but it peaks higher when there is a decent sized quake. And on May 21st the day of the "rapture" I got 207 views, my guess people checking to see if the big earthquake in New Zealand had happened as predicted.

WordPress shows what people looked at over the last week and often they are a couple of years ago, I don't know why they looked at it, sometimes there are 30 views of some obscure day when there was a Mag 3 in Mokia or somewhere even more isolated. I wonder sometimes if it is a school class or similar all looking at something in particular as part of a project.
I'd like to be accurate as possible, but as you say if it takes up too much time............

I get a lot of rainy days off work

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:43 PM
Just picked this one up

Magnitude: 4.9
Location: Greenland Sea

Time: Wed, 25 May 2011 17:55:37 GMT+01:00
GMT: Wed, 25 May 2011 16:55:37 GMT

Latitude: 74° 16' 47" N (74.2800°)
Longitude: 9° 17' 23" E (9.2900°)
Depth: 12.0 km


More Information (while available):

Data provided by European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by Tzavros

Your map link came out at Route 95 in Florida ,USA.

To create a map link you need to put the co-ordinates of the event into the Google Maps search box, click search maps then click on Link top right hand corner and right click the" Paste link in email or IM" copy/paste that .

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by muzzy

Thank you. I didn't know that one. Good job you knew where it was meant to be, I might have caused panic.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:00 PM
25.05.2011 19:30:26 4.9 North Pole Svalbard and Jan Mayen Barentsburg VulkĂĄn 0 VulkĂĄn 0 VulkĂĄn 0 EMSC

This will interupt magnetic lines of flux, people check your compass's and hope for NO x/m flares.
Expect birds too fly circles again, and crazy fish kills. (Worst case , emp. ~ size unknown)

Where's the ice?
edit on 25-5-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:04 AM
Before anybody chop my head for 'stealing their post' I do not know if it might be posted elsewhere on ATS;
I tried SEARCH but none found yet. IF it is, please forgive me; but I think it somewhat important here too:

"Japan's recent magnitude 9.0 earthquake, which triggered a devastating tsunami, relieved stress along part of the quake fault but also has contributed to the build up of stress in other areas"

Kind of strange since I was actually looking for 'Nanotechnology news"

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by BobAthome

I see therew ere 2 quakes there 4.5 and 4.9 according to USGS
Probably caused by the same thing thats causing the volcano to erupt in Iceland, on the same Ridge.

edit on 26-5-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:38 AM
reply to post by Aromaz

Interesting, but basically a rehash of common knowledge that the stress moves round, or I should say along, the faults thus release in one area can cause stress in another. Of course being 'scientists' they may have only just realised that. Mother Nature could not give a toss about what these people say. She will do her own thing despite them. Ask yourselves a question. If they can see stress building up why did they not predict the big one in Japan, or Chile, or Banda Aceh? Answer, because like everyone else they have 20/20 hindsight.

Most of these are relatively small quakes—magnitude 2 to 4—"but a lot of them," Lin said. "This is surprising; we've never seen this before," he said. "Such small events…may have happened following major quakes in other places but may have been missed due to poor seismic networks."

They really don't look too hard do they. Baja. 23,000 small quakes after the 7.2. More likely missed because of myopic vision and the glare from the white coats. There are other instances as well. Oh, and before any one asks, the distance from the epicentre of the Japan quake to the other side of the Island (300 miles) is actually LESS than the spread of the Baja quakes area (325 miles).

Anyway, I came on to say that Turkey may be slowing down. Here is the cumulative graph by number of quakes daily since 12th May

I also prepared two other graphs, before I had read the link so pure coincidence.

World 5+ since Jan 2011. As you can see in terms of numbers of quakes we are not quite back to the pre Japan levels. The line is very lightly steeper still.

And finally the last 2 years of Mag 6+. Interesting to note how much more of an effect Japan had on this graph than Chile. Don't forget this is ONLY numbers of quakes.

Addendum: Having recently acquired the complete Chile catalogue from 2000 onwards I thought I would take a quick look at the numbers of quakes in 2010 after the 8.8. These are all (shock horror) 'small ones' between 2 and 4 mag for the most part. Obviously a few 5s in there but not many mag 6. Curious is that the numbers seem to be increasing after a small lull. Bear in mind this is ALL of Chile so with it being such a long country this needs clarification. I also need to verify the before levels.

Further addendum; I added 2009. Not what I was expecting. Have to go out but I will return to this later. Need to add 2011.

edit on 26/5/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:15 AM
White Coats:
Point is that if they do realize it; such is because they just can't miss it anymore.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:46 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen

*drum roll*

I present to you for you delectation, pleasure and information, brought all the way from Chile at great expense, the inimitable, the consummate, the unsurpassed "Chile Quakes"!

*drum roll*

On my left "2008" and his younger brothers down to "2011" on my right.

On a more serious note. What to make of this? Don't know. As I said earlier I think I need to split this into smaller areas. Chile is about 2,800 miles long which makes Japan rather small. Whilst most of these quakes will be in the Northern half it needs to be seen if one area 'kicks off' after another.

Edit: In case the definition Chile is too vague an attribution here is the link to the Chilean catalogue from whence the data was extracted and manipulated and fed into a computer model and adjusted where it did not seem to fit in accordance with what I thought it should be and so as to make the whole thing look worse than it actually is.

Oh no, hang on that is what scientists do. The data is untouched, which is probably more than you can say for me.

edit on 26/5/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:10 AM

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

The fact that they are 72 deg. isosceles triangles, mean anything??
edit on 26-5-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

Just a quick question, who's data are the 5+ graphs based on? USGS, NEIC or ANSS?

The reason I ask is yesterday ( rainy day) I had time to do a time line graph showing Mag4+ quakes, using USGS data directly off their Past 7 Days and Past 8-30 Days pages.
Of course that data only goes back to 26th April (30 days)
So I thought to make this worthwhile I need to go back further.
I tried the USGS/NEIC (PDE-Q) Most Recent Events ( 2011 01 01 - 2011 05 25 ) search but couldn't get any results.
Then I tried searching the ANSS global earthquake catalog, which worked fine.

However, as a cross check I compared the last few days of April between USGS 30 days and the ANSS and for example on the 30th April USGS had 26 earthquakes above Mag 4 and ANSS had ............ 55

What the heck? My understanding is that ANSS and NEIC are both part of USGS, how can the 3 of them come up with different results.

Not sure what happened to NEIC I'm not sure I entered the right parameters in the boxes.

Heres the time line graph for the last 25 days anyway


Full Size Graph

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:59 PM

Are we considering this a swarm yet?

WTF is going on down there?

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by berkeleygal

It's the California wiggle,, just different location,, but this has been notice before long time ago,, it turned into a nothing too see here event,, but LONG TIME watchers where going,, oh oh ,, in the end ,, California is still here.

It was the big BIO-BIO,, one,, will always remember that name,,,,then shortly after that California went wiggley for week straight i think.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:33 PM
Here's the one that was just in Utah, now its gone

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

Thursday, May 26, 2011 at 22:13:07 UTC
Thursday, May 26, 2011 at 04:13:07 PM at epicenter
40.636°N, 109.481°W
0.7 km (~0.4 mile) (poorly constrained)
21 km (13 miles) NNE (13°) from Vernal, UT
21 km (13 miles) NNE (24°) from Maeser, UT
23 km (14 miles) N (4°) from Naples, UT
190 km (118 miles) ENE (76°) from Provo, UT
204 km (127 miles) E (93°) from Salt Lake City, UT
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 6 km (3.7 miles); depth +/- 28.5 km (17.7 miles)
NST= 19, Nph= 19, Dmin=10 km, Rmss=0.98 sec, Gp=202°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=0
University of Utah Seismograph Stations
Event ID

Shoulda got a screen shot

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:52 PM
further to post by muzzy

my mistake got the dates mixed up.

I'm going to use ANSS from now on, easier to use the data the way it is presented
edit on 26-5-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:08 PM
Not sure if anyone else is watching CNN at the moment..

if not, they just aired a segment called, "Can we control the weather?"

They discussed how governments have used new technology to seed clouds in order to make rain, create snow, and calm winds...

Then they started talking about the recent tornados and how they can 'aim to make them less deadly in the future;.

OMG...they are talking about this stuff on freakin' CNN?????????

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by berkeleygal

Bout the same as normally does every few months or so as far as I can see from my graphs.

It does not look any different to when it is 'normally' doing this.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by muzzy

It depends which one you are talking about. Generally when I am producing graphs within the last 2 years for quick looks I am going on the data I have collected from the USGS 7 day text files.

This information is known to be inaccurate as quakes get added after the 7 days and magnitudes change and don't get on the list. Since the USGS 7 days and 8/30 day lists are on the same basis they are also inaccurate. The only thing that I have noted does happen on the 8/30 list is that magnitudes get changed but very occasionally I see an addition. The 7 days lists are really only good as quick references and are rarely if ever correct in the final analysis.

ANSS is the list of choice as far as I am concerned for all quakes from 2002 to about 1 month behind current date if you are wanting to do a serious study. It can be only 1 week behind most times but I allow a month. Before 2002 I tend to use the Centennial. 2001 is complete in the Centennial, but 2002 is not. PDE I find is rarely up to date and is missing many quakes as well.

Edit to add: I use the 7 days listings for 'everyday' use as they have locations where as none of the other catalogues do. The problem with the 7 days listings are that they don't have magnitude types so to get those I have to download the XML version which has mags but no locations. By cross referencing the files I can get both data items. (Done automatically in my program - I would not have time for that manually!)

edit on 26/5/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 127  128  129    131  132  133 >>

log in