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: 327
203
<< 324  325  326    328  329  330 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LorraineRKO
 

Lorraine,

thank you! That was one of the ones I was trying to recall. In fact, it was the main one. There was also one back on Feb 10, 2006 that was a mag 5.2. It's mentioned in this USGS page where they ask people if they felt the mag 6.0 quake.

Your reply helped me to find that page. I was thinking that I should do a search via NEIC but having that information from you helped a lot and I'm very glad for it.

I feel stupid tonight. (It's after 11:30 pm here.) Do any of you ever have days (or nights) when you just feel stupid? You hit wrong keys, can't keep track of your thoughts. I'm not talking about being tired. I know "tired"! I mean, just like your brain has gone out to dinner and decided to take the rest of the evening off?

The GOM. It bothers me, that quake almost smack bang in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. A midplate quake, they called it. Midplate. Plate theory, you know. We need to bear in mind that Tectonic Plate Theory is just a theory with a capital T. It's not a Fact with a capital PH. Sorry. F.

A mag six that happened weirdly the day before the anniversary of "9/11". I read nothing into that date for this quake but all the same: people's emotions, you know. But it's odd because I thought I remembered it was a tad less, like a 5.7 or 5.8 or around that. I don't recall a nice round number like a 6.0. Whatever. I must be slipping. I knew the one earlier was a low 5 and yep, they say in that article I linked to that it was a 5.2.

Something at least.

But here's the problem: for all of the data that shows the GOM is not really all that deep compared to say the middle of the Atlantic or the Pacific, it's still pretty deep. Out in the middle there it runs a couple miles deep, if I recall what I read. (Could be wrong. Someone can check it.) That's still a heck of a lot of pressure. Water pressure, from the vertical column, as they'd say. I had charts that showed the psi per unit depth of salt water but can't find them now, but the pressure is huge.

And yeah so we know about the messups by BP et al. The runaway BOP in the GOM.

Sounds like the name of a crummy B grade movie.

So we all or at least most of us focused on that one well. Well, there are lots of others. Not with blown BOPs and running wild, but steadily siphoning hydrocarbons, gas and oil, to the surface (hopefully at least) and on and away to refineries.

Those wells into the oil and gas in the layers under the GOM -- they're not drilling into some kinds of big, underground natural tanks full of gas and oil, you know. The stuff is trapped in petrological layers and in sands. But that makes no difference. What does make the difference is the pressure.

They are taking Lord knows how many tons a day out from under the Good Old GOM, and the pressures are being un-equalized.

One thing can lead to another.

It bothers me.

And Lorraine, thanks for the kind comments. Feeling not too bad. Could be worse, so I'll take it...

Mike

PS: I'm asking those who "know" me via this site to not be too concerned. I know my posts have gone a bit weird. I get like this sometimes and it's often in and around the times of major quakes, specially if there are other factors as well. Not kidding. Just the way I am.

edit on 24/10/11 by JustMike because: I added a PS and fixed some text that looked wrong.




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 

Hi Muzzy,

I posted and found myself on the next page so I went back to see if I missed any posts after Lorraine's and found yours. I was still writing while you posted I guess. Took me I guess 20 minutes or so to write my post.

Had to keep stopping to check what I was trying to write.



But anyway, want to thank you for finding that quake data. I'm glad it was downgraded to a 5.9. Bothered me that the reference I had (and Lorraine's) said it was a 6.0. It's not a nice feeling to misremember (is that a word?) a number for a quake, specially an oddball "midplate" quake like that one.

With virtually no justification whatsoever beyond my gut feeling, I think that region of the GOM has a fault line in it. Just a very quiet one. I think further also with similar (ie basically zero) justification that it might even be a plate boundary to a mini plate. Assuming plate theory is at least half right, and I think around that amount is.

Lemme put it this way: would be worth keeping an eye on the ol' GOM over the next week or two. Nothing startling and maybe not even a quake report. But reports that could indicate something odd going on there. But yeah okay I'm suspecting a seismic event in the region.

That's not a prediction btw folks. Not precise enough. Just saying what I feel.

Folks who want to pan me for my unscientific statements, fire away. I don't mind.

But also ask yourself if you have truly gone your whole life without ever once listening to your gut instinct with nothing else to back it up -- and you were right to do so.

EDIT: watching GEE it looks like a small quake up in WA. Watching TA.A04D (Lummi Island.) I'd guess low 2 range. Just saying. Was about 20 mins ago actually at about 21:45 UTC -ish.

Mike

edit on 24/10/11 by JustMike because: I added an EDIT.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

What does seem strange about that one,a 2.2,is that they historically don't get that many quakes in that general area of California.
And also,it seems California has quieted down abit making me believe that stress levels are building up.
Could we be in for a big one soon in Cali?
Whose to know.




neic.usgs.gov...

edit on 24-10-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


You are welcome, sorry I don't have the source page for that, as I didn't bother back then, I was just doing the blog for my own entertainment/record. You can probably find the page on USGS somewhere, it was a big news story at the time.
Doesn't seem that long ago, but its 5 years now



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 

No worries, Kiwi. I don't need the source page. I know you keep good logs. It'll be on NEIC anyway. (Congrats to the All Blacks, BTW.)

Muzzy: there was another quake of around amag 5 in the GOM that happened no earlier than around mid 2007. I know it had to be that time at the earliest because it was while I was an ATS member and I've only been here about 4 years (and change).

Poster above you (kdog1982) made interesting comment about location of that small quake. True, they don't get so many there. But isn't that a heck of a map? I mean, it's amazing how active Cali is. Looks like a heli shot of a golf course in the dry season that's had truckloads of oranges dumped on it.

OK I know that sounds dumb. Sorry. But gee it's a lotta quakes.

Trouble is, the whole shemozzle of them wouldn't add up to more than one or two really big ones.


reply to post by kdog1982
 

Good that you included that map. Sometimes one decent map is better than a load of figures. It's visual. I like maps like maps like that.

I can't form any causal link of an "A+B leads to C" variety that things being a bit quiet in Cali suggests a big one might be coming up. Also, not sure what you mean by quiet even though I get a feeling you're right. I mean, I think Cali averages about 600 quakes a week or so and that's about where they were at for the past week when I checked on the SCEDC earlier today. But all the same, if by quiet you mean lots of little quakes and barely more than a couple of mag 3s, then yes, I get what you mean.

Seen it before, though.

On t'other hand, I think it's important to listen to your own feelings and if you feel there are indicators then you've every right to say so. I'd rather you speak up than not. I'm nobody special and have no authority and you could well be right.

Cali hasn't had a big jolt in quite a while (except when Arnie got made Governor, but that was a jolt of a different kind), but on the seismic front people there have had a peaceful time for a fair while. Doesn't mean something is "due" -- as quakes ain't babies and they ain't buses -- but let's say the longer it stays quiet, the closer it is to the next one.

Again, sounds dumb and I state the bleeding obvious.

But meanwhile the Cascadia Subduction Zone goes almost ignored by the majority and that creeps me out...

Mike

edit on 24/10/11 by JustMike because: Reply linky added etc



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Hey,Mike,it's kdog.
I just changed my avatar,thats all.



If you look at the past week or so in Cali,the quakes have become a little less frequent,IMO.
Not looking at big quakes,just those little ones the relieve the pressure.
That is what I was pointing out.


edit on 24-10-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 

Oh, it's you!


Oh, I'm sorry, man... I remember avatars better than names. I loved that avatar. Casual dog, leaning there, looking cool.

Now I'll have to learn your new one.

Okay on topic: as you know Calif quake frequency varies around a bit, so yep, sometimes there are quiet days and weeks then it gets busy again. I remember a while back when their weekly map showed 800-plus quakes.

But about the little quakes relieving pressure... That's a yes and no, I think. True, they might a bit, specially in that region, but the big mag quakes are so many times larger in terms of energy release that it's hard to know if the small ones made a lot of difference.

Like, the southern section of the SAF is believed capable of producing a mag 8.1 or thereabouts, based on new assessments of possible rupture length and so on. So, okay, there are heaps of little mag 1-range quakes, lots of mag 2s and all, and the odd mag 3 or bigger, but when we consider that a mag 8.1 is 1,000,000 times bigger than a mag 2.1 in terms of shaking and it releases 1,000,000,000 times more energy, we'd need one heck of a lot of mag 2.1s (for example) in the right places along the right fault to relieve that much stress.

Even with a mag 8.1 versus a mag 4.1, the mag 8.1 is 10,000 times bigger and releases a million times more energy. (It's the total energy release that matters, as you'd certainly know.)

That means we'd need a million mag 4.1 quakes to relase the same energy as a mag 8.1 -- and like I said, that would only work if they were in the right region and fault system to do that.

But when we consider that just oine single mag 4.0 releases as much energy as 1,000 mag 2.0 quakes, we can see the relative value in a more day-to-day scale of relationships.

Sorry. I'm raving on. I apologize. It's gone 1 am here and can't sleep. Horrible feeling.

But whatever, my feeling is that the "little quakes ease the pressure" is part true and part misleading. They release a little bit of the pressure. Because what I wrote above assumes a static system, where we have a fixed amount of stress.

But it's not like that. It's kind of like: imagine a dam. It's weakened by something and so we need to relieve the pressure on it. Start running water away down the slipway. But we can't release enough fast enough, because even as we let water out, there is still other water flowing in.

That's the point I'm really trying to make and doubtless annoying everyone in the process. The little quakes are only releasing some of the stress, a fraction of what is going in, like letting 100,000 gallons of water per hour out of a dam when there's 250,000 going in. Yes, we're helping to reduce the rate of stress buildup, but the fact remains that sooner or later that dam will reach its failure point and break anyway. Those little quakes might be delaying things but they won't stop the big one from happening.

And if there is an 8.1 or close to it, it will release around the same energy as one million mag 4 quakes. All in just a few minutes, and all along one main fault rupture.

Let's hope it's a good long time before it happens.

EDIT! >>> But you are right in what you say: if there are less little quakes, then it means even less stress is being taken off the faults. I meant to say that first but got sidetracked. By me...

Mike

edit on 24/10/11 by JustMike because: I added an edit.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Hey Mike,

So what has you tweaked about the GOM? I ask because, well, I live on it.

Also, there was a quake earlier this year just off my island. It was only a 3.5, but it was definitely in the Gulf and noticeable. The link to so info on it is www.abovetopsecret.com... . I tried to find the USGS file on it but I really stink at it. I am sure someone else has that info at hand.

Thanks, Amanda Rene'



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 

Ok,now I will have to change it back to my cool dog avatar!
Yes,I understand that the little quakes relieve a small amount of stress,but not enough.
And when I look at the world quake maps,all the quakes seem to be coming from Turkey right now and the fear of it awakening the volcano in Turkey.


Turkish seismologists fear that the earthquakes that hit the province of Van on October 23 can cause eruption of Nemrut volcano located northwards of Lake Van. Mt. Nemrut is near Tatvan, a small town in the eastern Anatolian province of Bitlis. The mountain rises from the southwestern shore of Lake Van, and enters the district of Ahlat to the north. At least 217 were killed and more than 1,000 people injured when a powerful earthquake struck Turkey, collapsing dozens of buildings and pulling down phone and power lines in the southeast of the country, officials and witnesses said. More than 1,000 people are feared killed in the earthquake. Another magnitude 6.1 earthquake, which was the second to rock the country in the past 24 hours, was registered about 20 km (12 miles) from the city of Van at the depth of some 10 km (6.2 miles).

hisz.rsoe.hu...



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 

Well explained ............. for 1am


you make a good point, imagine if there were a million mag 4's in California in a short space of time (even 10 years is short geologically) that would have the highways jammed outtathere, or maybe no one would notice.

It think the theory that the little ones relieve stress comes from situations like we have here in NZ where just before a Mag 5 the numbers of small quakes drop off quite dramatically (stress buildup?), it just happened on the 22nd Oct, only 7 minor/micro quakes then pow a Mag 5.0 off Cape Runaway.
Its the best source of predicting large local events that I have noticed in 5 years watching NZ and it happens almost every time (have to forget about the Christchurch or Dusky Sound 2009 aftershocks otherwise it doesn't work)
Too bad Geonet only publish their data twice a day, by the time you notice a drop off its too late and the 5 has hit already
edit on 24-10-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 

Using this to get your attention...

Muzzy, if you have the opportunity, please keep a weather eye on the west coast, could you? I've been watching TA.A04D Lummi Island, Washington State, TA.G03D McMinnville, OR, and CI.SBC, Santa Barbara. It's a good spread up and down the coast or close to it there.

I must get some rest. Stupidly late again.

Oh, a couple of regions that are ones I'm also just bothered over right now: first, Reggio Calabria, Italy (and down to Messina in Sicilia, as they are seismically linked), secondly, off Portugal, and finally the GOM. But I wrote about that one. If you see any flickers in those places it's worth noting. First two regions have very, very serious seismic history, as you doubtless are aware. Not saying something is going to happen in the next five minutes, just looking for any indicators, hints, suggestions from nature that something could be happening soon. Just my gut feeling and could mean nothing.

Best regards and it's good night from here,

Mike
Been a while since we've seen anything big in China too but maybe they'll be blessed and get a fair time off.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


In the centennial catalogue there is just one in 1967 (March) mag 5.5 but that was right down the bottom of the GOM near Popo. No aftershocks either.

That is in the whole of the area Lat 19 to 30, Lon -98 to -81. Amazing - less seismic that Ireland I think.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by amarenell
 

Hello, Amanda René,

I honestly can't put an answer into simple terms. It's just I don't feel good about it. As I said, I have no justification for what I feel, and certainly you have no need to be concerned because some guy on the internet is unhappy about the GOM. I'm not expecting massive tsunamis or anything silly like that. (The wide coastal shelf in the GOM states would mitigate any tsunamis anyway, from what I've read.

It just bothers me the way things bother us sometimes. I don't like odd quakes popping up in places.

Also I'm in one of my stupid moods and say what I think too much.

The others will assure that I'm not usually this bad, though.

I hope.

Best regards,

Mike



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


That's better. I did not recognise you in the other get up.

Amazing how visual we are really.


the fear of it awakening the volcano in Turkey.


Someone mentioned that on the thread earlier but what bugs me is that RSOE published that as if it was actually happening.


edit on 24/10/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 

I hope someone will send a rocket to RSOE freaking edis one of these days. A figurative rocket, I hasten to add. A word rocket...

There is zero evidence that any volcano has wakened in that region and they have done the online equivalent of a friend of a friend said...

I would not rely on them for the time of day, to be honest. They get quake times wrong, the locations wrong, the numbers of them wrong, magnitudes wrong...

They are incredibly consistent!

PS I like your "new" avatar. Good to see that smiling laid back dog back.

Mike

Am I still making sense?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by amarenell
 


Amazingly there is still info available on USGS. Fortunately I still had the reference number.

2011hmbx


edit on 24/10/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Thanks,you are doing great.
It never hurts to look,right?
RSOE.
It is the catalyst that lead me to this site to begin with in my search for the truth.
I like the cold hard facts,but also like the fringe stuff to keep you thinking and to keep an open mind on other possibilities.
I look at it as absorbing all the info I can,than sort through it,process it,get opinions on it and go from there.
Just my two cents worth.




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 



I would not rely on them for the time of day, to be honest.


And you would be very wise as their server time is often out by as much as 6 minutes!!



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 

Thank you... That thing with the dam and releiving pressure just came to me as I was writing.

So often we forget it's a dynamic system we're dealing with. I mean, we all know darned well it is. We know it's changing all the time and the stresses are moving around.

The whole thing is a big energy balancing act. All of this, with the plate theory and all. Plate theory does not, to me, at least, adequately explain plate movement in terms of forces that could cause that movement. Nice theory but I feel there are bits missing. Hats off to the ones who created the ideas, though. It's not a bad theory but needs a little polishing. Needs some of the rough edges rubbed off.

There's something very odd about subduction zones, you know. They really make very little sense.

Back to the energy. We must accept that energy is THE key. Quake energy release is way way more important than rupture length and actual damage and how much shaking. Our planet gives not two hoots about what magnitude we think something is, or how much shaking there is. Our planet is balancing energy, converting energy from one type to another, moving it where it needs to go.

If we knew where the energy balance point would probably shift to next: the why and the when and the where -- we could predict some of the big quakes with our eyes wide shut. Yeah sure we'd miss some but we'd also tag some and that could save lives.

Okay, I can't believe I am making much sense any more so I'll stop there. Sorry about this, my friends. This is the worst episode of this type I've had since, okay since March, and I worked very hard to control it then. Now I can't or don't want to.

But you have all suffered enough and your long-sufferingness is wonderful.

Goodnight and have a peaceful time,

Mike



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

And,puterman,I apologize for bringing the crap I do on your thread.
I'm just exploring all avenues ,thats all.
Please forgive me.




top topics



 
203
<< 324  325  326    328  329  330 >>

log in

join