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: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by Shenon

Very likely related to the big one. It's within fractions of a degree in location. Similar depth range as well.

Note for members: EMSC has the details that Shenon has posted. You may confirm them here.


posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:16 PM

Thanks for the update.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:01 PM
never mind

I'm a bit late reporting the pakistan quake I see
edit on 18-1-2011 by berkeleygal because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

Sure - I spend the last 6 hours shoveling 6" of Snow which had turned into 4 inches of dreaded slush and ice - go figure.

Anywho - 10 km is the automatic data program set on the instruments --- (when they can't figure out yet the depth).

Hope the folks and damage there is minimal.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:51 PM
Hmm - Kinda far for an aftershock ?

Magnitude 5.0
Date-Time Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 03:47:06 UTC
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 09:47:06 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 39.399°N, 72.192°E
Depth 35.1 km (21.8 miles)
Distances 100 km (60 miles) WSW of Sary-Tash, Kyrgyzstan
115 km (70 miles) SSE of Farghona (Fergana), Uzbekistan
125 km (80 miles) WNW of Karakul, Tajikistan
435 km (270 miles) SSW of BISHKEK (Frunze), Kyrgyzstan

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 15.6 km (9.7 miles); depth +/- 1.4 km (0.9 miles)
Parameters NST= 98, Nph= 99, Dmin=386.3 km, Rmss=1.12 sec, Gp= 65°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=7

Event ID usb00010yz

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:00 PM

Originally posted by MoorfNZ
5.5 nr Rotorua, North Island, New Zealand

Universal Time January 18 2011 at 8:45
NZ Daylight Time Tuesday, January 18 2011 at 9:45 pm
Latitude, Longitude 38.12°S, 176.18°E
Focal Depth 150 km

Richter magnitude 5.5

Region Rotorua

* Within 5 km of Rotorua
* 190 km south-east of Auckland

This one has been reviewed and revised UP
3449463, -38.11591, 176.18695, 2011/1/18 8:45:47, 153, 5.744ML

same location

USGS missed by 43km and and a whole 0.9 ML

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by westcoast

There could be something bigger in the works -- or at least something quite significant -- but in an entirely different part of the world.

As this is a quake watch thread and not a quake predictions thread, I've posted preliminary prediction details in the "Experiment in Alternative Methods of Earthquake Prediction" thread here and follow-up details here.

I must point out that it's not a "doom-and-gloom" prediction, but if it actually happens it could be worth noting.



edit on 19/1/11 by JustMike because: Fixed linky.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:33 AM
Hi all. I'm reposting some information here that came up in another thread (

The question was why the higher number of US earthquakes in 2010 - info came from this website:

I e-mailed my dad (50 years with the USGS as a seismologist) and asked him why more earthquakes in 2010 in the US. This is his response:

"It's unfortunate that the USGS doesn't explain the apparent increase in earthquakes in the US over the past decade.

Note, however, the increase in recorded earthquakes is not the same proportionally across all magnitudes. Proportionally, the number of M 7 to 7.9 quakes changed not at all over the decade. These are the most powerful & therefore the most destructive earthquakes. M 6 to 6.9 quakes showed a lot of variation in number w/ an apparent uptick toward the end of the decade. These quakes are felt over wide areas. It's very unlikely that any M 6 to 7.9 quakes in the US have gone unrecorded in the US in at least the last 50 years. So to look for periodicity or episodicity one should look at least 50 years of available data.

On the other hand, there has been a significant increase in M 2 to 3.9 earthquakes throughout the decade and what looks like significantly more in 2010. M 2 & 3 quakes release too little energy to be felt by humans in all but the most quiet surroundings. The increase in energy release by these small is not much compared to a single M 7 quake. Each increase in magnitude by one equals the release of 32 times as much energy. A M 7 quakes releases 32 x 32 x 32 x 32 32 as much energy as a M 2 quake.

However, I can think of three reasons to explain the distribution of quakes across the decade & magnitude scale.
1. More sensitive instruments to detect earthquakes & greater density of instruments across the US. Over the last decade USGS has largely replaced analog seismometers with more sensitive digital seismometers This would explain much of the increase in M 2-3 quakes. Any old seismometer can detect a M 6 or 7 quake, but a really sensitive one is needed to detect M 2 & 3s.

2 Earthquakes are not evenly distributed over time. They happen more frequently at some times than at others. Just as with tossing coins. The probability of getting a head on any toss is always 0.5, but still there is a significant probability of tossing heads two times in a row. Or even getting a head four times in a row. Looking at the last 50 or so years of M 6 to 7.9 quakes would give a much better idea if how the amount of energy released over time has changed.

3. There is a real variation in the number of earthquakes over time. I remember reading that the number of small quakes in southern California between Palm Springs & the Gulf of California has increased in the last few years, but its the big ones we watch for."

Just information I thought might be of interest to Quake Watchers :-)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:33 AM
Firstly, the moon was just about full when the Pakistan earthquake hit. The moon pulls on water as we see when we observe the tides. Geologists now understand that the moon can cause earthquakes. Pakistan has been severely flooded. This means that groundwater levels were probably full and under great pressure. The gravitional movement of water, as it ebbs and flows with the cycle of the moon, lubricates the faults and allows the plates to slide.

But that's not really what I want to talk about. There is nothing abnormal about the Pakistan quake. There has been nothing abnormal about any earthquake activity in the world. Except one place.

That place is a 10 kilometer long zone in Arkansas. South of Guy and to the northeast of Greenbriar. There's been nearly 700 in a swarm that started last year at some point. Earthquakes in the area are not uncommon. But there is not reason for the swarm. Meaning, there is no major fault, or volcanic hot spot nearby.

Puterman started me a thread so I could expand on my ideas. And so I wouldn't sidetrack the Yellowstone watchers with my constant mutterings. On this thread, I have stated my hypothesis concerning these quakes and how they caused the bird kill and fish kill in Arkansas. The culprit is fracking.

Puterman has posted a graph showing the number of quakes over time. I've asked him to post a map with the current quakes and show the frack wells. I would do it myself but I'm just a writer. There is a noticable line of quakes and there is fracking well sites all over the place to the west, north and northeast. The "crack" is 10 kilometers long. There are drilling pads within 1 kilometer of some of the epicenters.

The gas drilling is tapping into the Fayetteville Shale which runs from west to east along the north end of Arkansas. This "crack runs right across the Shale Play. It's as if the earthquakes are cracking the shale formation in half. Like cutting some French Bread on an angle.

I invite you to my crazy corner to discuss this issue. There is a real danger. The swarm is continuing and there may be something major as a result. The army is disposing of chemical weapons in a process called deep well injection disposal.

Could they be using old frack sites to force dangerous chemicals into the crust?
Are they destablizing the area which will set off other nearby faults?
Or is this equalization as the ground settles after the fracking process?

They are not fracking the entire area. People get in the way. You can see the clusters of drilling, and then there are areas where there is no drillling. The gas companies concentrate their drilling where they can get landowners to sign leases. And you have local laws which make make it more difficult in some towns. This may be creating an imbalance. Gas would be migrating all over the place looking to equalize pressures.

Well that's it. I won't muck up this site with my non-stop blathering. Come find me if you want to do something. Like learning, or researching. Or tell someone about the dangers of fracking. Yell at some politicians. Hell I don't know. All I know is that it's something to watch because it's not normal. You can watch all these big quakes and wonder what they mean. But don't forget about all the multitudes of tiny little shakes happening in Arkansas.

Fracking produces tiny little earthquakes. Deep well injection is know to cause larger quakes. And lets not forget about mining. When they frack they need large gravel pads for the many trucks that need to deliver water, chemicals and equipment. There is a gravel pit in the area which supplies the sites. They cause little quakes when they use large explosive devises.

Arkansas, a whole lotta of shaking going on.

edit on 19-1-2011 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by Robin Marks

Woa! Now that info has just blown my mind! Injecting chemicals into the core via old fracking sites....?
Man oh man. Reading it felt like I was hearing the truth though, sadly. Bad, bad news. Though you say a lot of the other earthquakes around the world are pretty normal, is it possible that this injecting and so forth is happening all over the world and having an impact...?


posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by 5senses

I first want to say that I don't know if they are using old frack wells as disposal sites for the chemical weapons. That's my next area of research. The army is doing it somewhere in the state, but I don't know where. I do know that the fracking is using deposit sites for their salt water waste.

I'm focused on Arkansas for the moment and can't say exactly where they are injection wells. I do know they are fracking all over the place now. The price of oil now makes it viable.

They're fracking near Yellowstone.

And I must add this. Geologists cannot precisely say what will be the long term consequences. This is because fracking is relatively new. The old way, and still the predominate way of extracting gas and oil is drill a hole and let the natural pressure spew out the goo. Like BP's Deep Trouble Horizon.

Fracking is a grand experiment. On a grand scale.

Geologists and engineers are experimenting. Experiment near faults, and for some reason that I can't fathom, they're experiment near one of the world's largest volcanos. Did I forget to say active volcano? Did I forget to mention that fracking causes gas migration and contaminates aquifers. People's water wells explode and they can set their tap water on fire.

I seem to be the only one in the world that has had a nightmare concerning Yellowstone. My nightmare. And it's reoccuring, and haunts me. My nightmare is that fracking contaminates Yellowstone's aquifer. Doesn't sound too bad, other than the obvious enviromental disaster which fills some bison and lots of wildlife. No, what if you have methane in a geysers.

What if fracking causes a deep fault under Northwestern Wyoming?
What if fracking migrates gas which ends up in Yellowstone's groundwater?

Of course the geologists will tell you it's impossible. The aquifers don't connect and the gas won't migrate.
The gas companies geologists, rather the company representatives, who work with the geologists, said that it was impossible for gas to get into one lady's well.
Well, it did.

One Wyoming farmer had his well spoil. Damn mad at the drilling guys he was. Mad as hell he decided to dig another well down even deeper so he could find some good water. Well, they went deep and found more contminated water. So they went deeper. They findly had a blowout. Methane gas shot out of the ground in a violent roar. The eruption went on for days until the gas company finally agreed to cap it. They claim no responsibility. They were just being neighbourly.

Do you trust the gas and oil companies?
Do you trust geologists and engineers who work for these industries?
Do you trust the geologists who work for the goverment?
A government that gave the gas and oil companies exemptions to established laws.
A government addicted to fossil fuels and who is in a mad rush to develope it's own resources.
Do you trust the geologists?

I respect the science.
I trust nothing.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:46 AM
A thread has been started re all the sesmic activity around the world today. It think this happened December 10, 2010 as well. Anyone have any ideas of what is going on - does this have to do with the Pakistan quake?

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:50 AM
Guess moorfnz is awake now

Reference Number 3450113/G
Universal Time January 19 2011 at 17:03
NZ Daylight Time Thursday, January 20 2011 at 6:03 am
Latitude, Longitude 43.62°S, 172.55°E
Focal Depth 10 km
Richter magnitude 5.1
Region Canterbury

* 10 km south-west of Christchurch

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by ns9504

Pretty well answers all the questions doesn't it

You could add to that;

4. In the past not many people were interested, the age of the internet has increased peoples awareness of what is going on earthquake wise.

I know myself prior to 2004 the only earthquakes I was aware of Globally were Mag 6+'s (or even high 5's) that caused destruction and loss of life shown on the TV News, and 4.8+ quakes locally.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by ns9504

I responded to that 'person'. What a complete load of rubbish he posted.

You might want to read this and your Dad might be interested as well

This has been seen by someone in USGS who commented favourably about it.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by muzzy
reply to post by ns9504

Pretty well answers all the questions doesn't it

You could add to that;

4. In the past not many people were interested, the age of the internet has increased peoples awareness of what is going on earthquake wise.

I know myself prior to 2004 the only earthquakes I was aware of Globally were Mag 6+'s (or even high 5's) that caused destruction and loss of life shown on the TV News, and 4.8+ quakes locally.

Yes. The other fact about earthquakes is that we can be prepared, and fare pretty well in the aftermath. Just look at Haiti and Chile last year.

Haiti had a 7.0 - death toll of 220,000, with around 1.5 million to 1.8 million homeless.

Chile was an 8.8 (significantly stronger) - death toll was 521, 370,000 homes were damaged. Chile was still a mess, but able to rebound much more quickly and without the loss of life we saw/see in Haiti.

Disaster preparedness and relief, building codes, and infrastructure can make a huge difference. I grew up in California with geologist parents - being prepared is in my blood. I'm not afraid of earthquakes, just where I might be when one hits. To this day, I still can't fall asleep if something is hanging over my bed, and I don't even live on an active fault!

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by ns9504

I responded to that 'person'. What a complete load of rubbish he posted.

You might want to read this and your Dad might be interested as well

This has been seen by someone in USGS who commented favourably about it.

Complete rubbish. Comparing one year to the next simply isn't accurate for earthquake analysis.

That report is super cool. 100 years of data is much more telling. I'm very visual, so the graphs on page 6 spoke to me the most. Looking at it, there are no major spikes in frequency over 100 years. I'm comfortable with believing the earth is not cracking up right now, not techtonically anyway.

Its so easy for people to FREAK OUT about information that is not exactly correct. But, I do have faith in science and I like an educated discussion, not everyone's cup of tea. I'll respect that, but I'm not willing to get whipped up into a frenzy without applying my own critical thinking :-)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by ns9504

Yes 100 years is better. Muzzy's 7+ project is the one for that, but I think it should be on energy released and not magnitude. Energy release takes account of the fact that in a bunch of 7+ quakes there may be 1 at 7.0 and 1 at 7.9

7 1,995
7.1 2,818
7.1 2,818
7.1 2,818
7.2 3,981
7.2 3,981

7.8 31,623
7.9 44,668

Basically the first 6 of the 7+ quakes are around a quarter of the energy value of the last 2. (Gigajoules by the way)

Numbers are a waste of time. Energy is all that counts.

edit on 19/1/2011 by PuterMan because: OK, I am fed up with giving you reasons. I just wanted to edit it. Right? Stop hassling me!

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

Thank you for providing the link to your Earthquake Analysis thread. How I missed it before I have no idea... I placed a comment on your thread just now, but I'd like to take this opportunity to urge other members to take a look at your analysis if they have not already done so.

Best regards,

edit on 19/1/11 by JustMike because: Oh typos! O mores!

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:12 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

It's not just the energy. It's totals, frequency, and location that matters. I'm curious about the total amount of energy released in Arkansas.

Sometimes you can be a bit harsh. It's best to say nothing sometimes. Not that I know anything about that. Here's a good quote to keep in mind while you investigate ideas. Sometimes the idea may be incorrect, but it still may help further your understanding to know where the thought came from.

Albert Einstien wrote, "I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research."

The problem with imaginings is that they are often wrong. But that doesn't make the entire excercise invalid.

You can't research an unknown if you never asking yourself "what if"... That's the creative part of science and those that can only imagine, can still become awesome science fiction writers if nothing else.

edit on 19-1-2011 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in