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 2011

page: 291
203
<< 288  289  290    292  293  294 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


There is no doubt that earthquakes and volcanoes go hand in hand. The real debate is about where or not they are connected in a larger dynamic. Most geologists will say that everything is local.

I however think otherwise. Most geologists don't think quakes can cause other quakes thousands of kilometers from the epicenter. Although, there has been research to see if this is true. But there are real cases where this has happened. Alaska triggered Yellowstone. But is this the exception and not the rule.

I think it's interrelated. But it is very hard to split the hairs. It's almost impossible to make the larger connections without masses of data over very, very long periods of time. We haven't been studying quakes long enough to observe long period trends.

I don't think the New Madrid has much to do with volcanoes or the magma under the crust.
That nightmare is all the oilboys doing.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
UK still likes to stick its head above the parapet and play with the big boys every now and again!

DATE 03/10/2011
ORIGIN TIME 21:12:37.7 UTC
LOCATION 56.227 -3.575
DEPTH 7 km
MAGNITUDE 1.6
LOCALITY GLENDEVON,PERTHSHIRE

DATE 04/10/2011
ORIGIN TIME 08:15:28.7 UTC
LOCATION 56.228 -3.577
DEPTH 8 km
MAGNITUDE 1.4
LOCALITY GLENDEVON,PERTHSHIRE

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Aftershock.

There I said the word.
Foreshock, mainshock, aftershock. I suppose using the terms helps with identification of specific quakes.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


I'm curious as to whether or not there is drilling near the UK quake. I've done a quick check, but haven't found anything yet.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
What are my bids on a quake in Colorado today?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Solomon Islands elected to contribute:

Magnitude
4.3
Date-Time
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 at 15:02:35 UTC
Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 02:02:35 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location
7.607°S, 156.223°E
Depth
85.5 km (53.1 miles)
Region
SOLOMON ISLANDS
Distances
88 km (54 miles) NW of Gizo, New Georgia Islands, Solomon Isl.
112 km (69 miles) SSW of Chirovanga, Choiseul, Solomon Islands
457 km (283 miles) WNW of HONIARA, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands
2227 km (1383 miles) N of BRISBANE, Queensland, Australia
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 36.9 km (22.9 miles); depth +/- 38.2 km (23.7 miles)
Parameters
NST= 13, Nph= 13, Dmin=457.5 km, Rmss=1.12 sec, Gp=108°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=3
Source
Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Event ID
usc00064ug

Be Well.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
quite a difference in magnitude for the same event considering they both use the same stations to read the data

and why usgs pick Rotorua as the nearest city when Tauranga is closer ............and bigger



Reference Number 3590051
Universal Time October 5 2011 at 9:57
NZ Daylight Time Wednesday, October 5 2011 at 10:57 pm
Latitude, Longitude 37.52°S, 176.31°E
Focal Depth 310 km
Richter magnitude 5.7ML
Region Bay of Plenty
Location
20 km north-east of Tauranga
160 km south-east of Auckland

www.geonet.org.nz...


Magnitude 4.6 mb and 4.6ML
Date-Time
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 at 09:57:41 UTC
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 at 10:57:41 PM at epicenter
Location 37.581°S, 176.218°E
Depth 315.4 km (196.0 miles)
Region NORTH ISLAND OF NEW ZEALAND
Distances 63 km (39 miles) N of Rotorua, New Zealand
151 km (93 miles) ESE of Auckland, New Zealand
198 km (123 miles) NW of Gisborne, New Zealand
431 km (267 miles) NNE of WELLINGTON, New Zealand
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 21.4 km (13.3 miles); depth +/- 10.9 km (6.8 miles)
Parameters NST= 39, Nph= 45, Dmin=109.1 km, Rmss=1.34 sec, Gp= 43°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source
Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Event ID usc00064pj

earthquake.usgs.gov...
edit on 5-10-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robin Marks
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


I'm curious as to whether or not there is drilling near the UK quake. I've done a quick check, but haven't found anything yet.



No, most of the drilling up in Scotland is in the North Sea, and there lies a whole different issue.
We managed to get fracking stopped out in Liverpool Bay, just off Blackpool earlier this year because it triggered about 3 EQ's and that's all it took to stop it.

Some 30 years ago, both my school teachers and University lecturers explained fracking and how lethal it would be, and if any oil company went down that route, it would be horrendously expensive and would only be done in extreme situation where we would have to be running out of oil. So they could never see it happening from a geological, financial, ecological, and safety point.......how wrong they were. Beats me why 'they' are doing it. the only reason which makes any logical sense to me is that there is far less oil available world wide than they are letting on to.

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


I'm convinced that Chaplain Lindsey Williams et al are correct . . . that there's FAR MORE oil than they want to admit. We could have oil for 400-800 years into the future--including accounting for increased demand--all from within the USA's borders . . . and much resulting in gasoline at $0.60/gallon.

The fracking likely has to do with their stubborn refusal to use great big chunks of that oil and insistance on using foreign oil--spreading the wealth around . . . and charging the serfs for employing more folks at high salaries . . . etc.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jjjtir
 

yes indeed, usgs seem to have some problems with the deeper quakes in the NZ region.
Too bad the Aussies haven't picked either of these two up to use as a cross reference
Geonet are pretty good at revising their data later if they got it wrong, but they seldom change Mag 5's down by a whole magnitude.

Geofon had last nights quake at 4.7mb just a tad higher than usgs



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Sorry, I can't agree with either Chaplain Lyndsey Williams or your added comments.
My father worked for Shell UK as an executive over 50 years ago, well before conspiracy theories were even promulgated (that started with Kennedy's assasination probably), and well before we had the likes of OPEC et all.
During the late 70's all the carry on about oil reserves, cost of oil, OPEC basically controlling it all etc, I used to have some very insightful conversations with my father, usually me asking questions and listening to his answers. Even in the 50's they had a pretty good idea when oil would be more difficult to get out of the ground and would become cost prohibitive.
It was also about the same period that fracking for oil was being bandied about. Yes there are some very large oil reserves, but they are nigh on impossible to get to, or massively cost prohibitive and dangerous because of the pressures involved in extracting it, we just don't have the technology. Fracking is the only answer they have to basically suck the last remnants of oil that is accesible out of the ground.
And back on topic.....we know what happens when they do that! The results and ensuing EQ's let alone the toxins just bare out what geologists and scientists said over 40 years ago and in their wildest dreams never thought oil companies would be stupid enough to resort to this crazy, lunatic idea to get the last dregs of available oil out of the ground.
By the way, I was married to an Aberdonian oil man, who totally understood fracking and said they wouldn't dare get oil out that way! Also at that time I worked for the Aberdeen Journals for the Evening Express which was the first place that the Piper Alpha disaster broke news. I worked on the Business section and 75% of my clients were all oil company related, and anyone I spoke to about fracking were of the same mind.
Rainbows
Jane



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

New Madrid SZ - Some thoughts



First I am going to make some assumptions. I am going to assume that there was a previous set of events in the NMSZ 250 years prior to 1811. The reason for this will become clear shortly.

I am going to assume that something, despite the evidence against, is creating pressure on the fault. There is minimal movement according to the GPS monitors but let's say it ids the remnant of the Farallon plate that is causing a stress as it sinks.

The next problem is what actually were the magnitudes of the 4 earthquakes?

There are various values suggested. The USGS Historical list says 7.7, 7.0, 7.5 and 7.7

Wikipedia gives a lower and upper for each one: ~7.2 - 8.2, ~7.2 - 8.2, ~7.0 - 8.0, ~7.4 - 8.6.

Some venture to suggest even higher values but we won't go there just now!

I am going to look at the USGS values which may be conservative and the upper values from Wikipedia and compare the results through to 2011.

There is a very considerable difference in energy release between the two sets of figures.

USGS: 58 PJ
WIKI: 816 PJ

If we take those values and divide by 250 (years) we might have some idea of the pressure build up each year.

USGS: 0.232 PJ (between a 6.2 and 6.3) - per year
WIKI: 3.264 PJ (between a 7.1 and 7.2) - per year

You have to ask yourselves are either of these values reasonable? We know there was a 6.3 (0.177 PJ) in 1843 and a 6.6 (0.5 PJ) in 1895. We also can determine from the ANSS records that between 1962 and 2011 the average energy released each year from the quakes listed (4.0+ generally) was 0.0014 PJ per year.

When I looked at the Santa Cruz Islands the value was just over 4.6 PJ per year for the stress build-up. Plate movement around that area is about 123mm/year so that is 0.0375 PJ per millimetre per year of stress. The NMSZ moves around 1 mm so the figures above would appear at face value to be way out. The problem is the we just do not know when the previous tranche of quakes happened, or even if they did.

If we assume that USGS values are the ones to use then on 250 years the 'target' value is not reached until 2048, but at 200 years it is next year. But before anyone starts panicking, don't forget that is at a stress increase of 0.2PJ a year (5.33 mm movement a year??) which is almost certainly completely unrealistic.

To achieve the 0.0375 PJ per year figure from Santa Cruz the previous build-up would have had to take 1500 years, i.e. the previous big one in the area would have been 311 AD or thereabouts.

If we use that figure, and the average release per year over the past 50 years, then the stress build up does not get back to 58 PJ until the year 3,372.

Using Wikipedia figures on 200 years the result is the same - next year, but to reach down to the 0.0375 would be 21,500 years back! It would also be as many years in the future before it reached that level again. The yearly stress build up at 200 years is 4.08 PJ which represents 108 mm of Santa Curz style stress.

The most interesting aspect is actually taking the lower values from Wikipedia and plugging them in.

To get down to 0.0375 PJ would mean the previous was 475 years ago. Sounds quite reasonable actually. The magyk figure is 17.9 PJ as the combined energy of the 4 and it would be the year 2,323 before it gets back up to that level again.

The constant that we have is the energy release which we know averages 0.0014 PJ per year over a 50 year period. Even at the SC levels of stress per mm that gives an increase in stress/over release of 0.0375/0.0014, which represents 26.78 times more stress coming in than being relieved.

If you consider that level to be reasonable, and it is way more reasonable than using 0.2 PJ, then is is around 200 years to go before the levels get anywhere near those when the 1811/1812 quakes happened.


edit on 5/10/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


ETA: By the way that does not mean there could no be a damaging 6 (0.1 PJ) to 6.5 (0.3 PJ), but that is way below the energy levels of a 7.5 (11.2 PJ). In fact a 6 or thereabouts is probably well overdue.


edit on 5/10/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 



Even in the 50's they had a pretty good idea when oil would be more difficult to get out of the ground and would become cost prohibitive.


Yes, however that was before abiotic oil. Curious how since those days the oil reserves have been going up not down which by the knowledge of the 1960s should be the case.

Fracking is mainly about gas not oil although it is used for that sometimes. The purpose is not as far as I can see to get it out of the ground, but to give it the freedom to come out of the ground faster. If you need to suck oil you use a nodding donkey. There is no such equivalent for gas other than pumping fluid in - which is done in the North Sea. Fracking is definitely about volume, of that I am convinced.

Personally I am quite a fan of abiotic oil as it explains so many other things like where all the water came from.

Just my 2c.


edit on 5/10/2011 by PuterMan because: To add clarity as obfuscation is my inate natural art.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Sorry Puterman, but you're comparing apples to oranges. I would think New Madrid should be compared with somewhere in the middle of Asia. And even then, the NMSZ is unique. Not many other areas have a giant river running through it. The crust is different. It's basically a fragile place.

Also, in the distant past, humans weren't screwing around down deep in the crust.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I not to sure about this, but I think they're fracking now for oil in a big way. I'd research it more, but I've already overdosed on the subject and can only take new news in small bites.

www.npr.org...


edit on 5-10-2011 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Marks
 


No I am not comparing apples to oranges. Stress is stress no matter how it is built up. There is movement and it may not be subduction, or maybe it is, and movement is what causes the stress. Sorry but you cannot get away from that. No movement, no stress.

So tell me where in the middle of Asia? No matter where you pick you will find plate movement causing stress, or Coriolis movements causing stresses in or rather under apparent solid land masses.

The simple facts are that once an area, and it matters not which area, looses its built up stress it goes right back to building it up again. That takes time. In my opinion there are insufficient forces at work in the NMSZ to produce a mag 7.5 to 8 for many decades - possibly 200 years yet.


edit on 5/10/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Yes I do remember you giving me that link and telling me what to click on, however as funny as it may be....when I try it ....it brings up nothing.
I will figure it out though....thanks for telling me again.


Also, that is some good information you laid out for the New Madrid. I am not sure if it is because of the Mississippi or if it is from fracking but it seems to me this area is going to blow because of the pressure that is building and I really don't think the fracking is helping. It may be another 100 years, who knows.

Amateur Observation:

From around 1811-1817 there were big EQ's in the US that seemed to go off in concert with Volcanic activity as well. The Earth was trying to cool itself (as I believe it is now). Volcanic activity is said to be a cooling mechanism for the Earth.....I wonder if this is the same for EQ's. (Don't laugh)


Everyone has their own opinion...and of course mine may be way off....but it is worth a ponder??



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 



but it seems to me this area is going to blow because of the pressure that is building and I really don't think the fracking is helping.


The problem is that to make the statement you have to quantify the pressure. I have tried to do that. I am not saying I am right, just that those are my thoughts on it. Now actually if you think about it fracking is helping - the problem is it depends who's point of view you are looking at.

It is releasing stress. This is manifested as earthquakes which are not good for us. Mother Nature might think otherwise.

The very fact that you or Robin or anyone thinks that fracking is going to release pressure in a large earthquake means that you also have to be able to show why this stress is building - or not as the case may be.

Earthquakes don't just happen. They are the result of a sudden release of energy as a fault ruptures. To rupture the fault has to have built up stress. As I said it really does not matter whether the stress is from subduction or intrusion, or from the application of or the release of weight. However you look at it stress is the result of an area not being able to move where it wants to move.

How do we know an area is under stress? Well these days by GPS. In the olden days by guessing! (Or the equivalent of glass on buildings to detect movement)

No matter what as I said to Robin, no movement = no stress. 1 mm of movement in the NMSZ cannot be anything like the equivalent amount of stress of a zone under stress such as Santa Cruz or Japan or Chile.

In a way you are right. Earthquakes are like volcanoes. Both are releasing built up stress.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Marks
 


I tend to think everything is connected, geology included. I am not an expert in anything and hardly know a fact or two other than I am an aware being. With that said I think anything is possible.

Here is my thinking....(tell me where I am wrong or waaaay off base.
I tend to ramble....sorry if I do).

... energy in the ground travels and it changes/transforms. For this reason the energy "relates" in regards to Earthquakes and Volcanoes...the yin and the yang.

Volcanic activity is said to cool the Earth....

There is always a cause and effect with anything, imo.

What causes the plates to shift may very well be different factors at play, however it seems more likely to me, the energy within the crust plays a huge roll. There has to be energy for it to move.

What causes this energy?

Water from the ice caps? Energy from the moon/sun? Where?

Which type of energy then comes into question. The type of energy that moves. Ok....so then what relates to the subject in regards to energy and movement with volcanoes and earthquakes? Rocks? Magnetite? When the sea floor moves volcanic activity and earthquakes are bound to happen.

I am leaning toward either another aid to help cool the planet as with volcanoes or the cause being a reaction from volcanic activity. We have millions of volcanoes in the sea and we have no idea when they go off/blow.

The Japan quake I think shifted us to the point of major adjustment. This adjustment possibly stretched the sea floor so much it will take a while before it settles. Meaning, volcanic activity and earthquakes may be on the rise for the next couple of years or so....or possibly not at all.

I love puzzles, analyzing and doing detective work...it is my nature. I love to ponder their relations but have no idea as I do not have the time to really study like I want to...ya know?

Ok...so I did ramble...sorry. Maybe I need to hold off on my second Bud Light.



new topics

top topics



 
203
<< 288  289  290    292  293  294 >>

log in

join