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: 361
203
<< 358  359  360    362  363  364 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Getting signature of a quake coming in near Ecuador... stay tuned...

edit: nope, tracking further to central america, costa rica/nicaragua
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


Yeah, looking like near Nicaragua somewhere...

Estimate: 5.4 to 5.8 or so
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


Yeppers:

5.9
earthquake.usgs.gov...
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


Ok..now that was cool. How did you see this one coming. I need step by step.
I DID get GEE going again, although I have not had time to check out the thread and teach myself just yet. I plan on doing that tomorrow.




posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


Far from being pathetic I query how

(1) such a small quake was felt at all, let alone felt as far as Newark (20 miles) and
(2) why you can hardly see it on the CWF and WACR seismos (just) but not on STNC (Stoke) yet that seems to have some of it's own(?) and
(3) LMR, your fav seismo only just shows it.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Just wondering if anyone read this silly article concerning the OK earthquake
OK earthquake too powerful to be man made.

Seriously people are supposed to read an article like that and just believe it because some No Named "expert" said so?

Oh and Mike I read your link regarding the first hand accounts of the New Madrid EQ's of 1811-1812.
I was glued to my computer for a couple of hours! Nice find!



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Good call. Have to wait for the phase and tensor data but looking at the velocity do you think that might make a 6.0?

I don't know what the geology of the area is. Maybe it is pone to ground shake?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
Ok..now that was cool. How did you see this one coming. I need step by step.


Well, in a nutshell:

1) I was monitoring IU.OTAV in Ecuador
2) Saw the P-wave signature on it, and realized it was a pretty good distance from the S-wave, meaning that station was pretty far away. Reported quake, not sure where, opened up more monitoring in the area and saw it strong on GE.BOAB, with a good look at the amplitude (400 or so microns/sec).
3) Since no other stations were stronger, and the P-wave and S-wave were very close together on BOAB, made determination that it had to be nearest Nicaragua.
4) Estimate of the magnitude through years of experience, and I still can be pretty far off sometimes. In this case, I was close.

That's about it. But yeah, the GEE tips thread will help.
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


You know, for a while now I have been thinking about how to further characterize magnitude when I am not sure. Signatures can be deceiving. But I guess my .4 range is working ok, for the most part. Maybe I'll add a + or - in the future to further indicate that initial impressions are the magnitude may be greater or less. In other words, 5.4 to 5.8 "-", showing that the signature will likely end up being in that range or less, when it's all said and done, a week has gone by, and the seismologists all get their say.

"+" same thing, but to the other side of the range. In this case I would say 5.4 to 5.8 "-". So no, I think this one won't reach 6. Didn't have the character, duration, or amplitude of a 6.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Oh yes?

earthquake.usgs.gov...

and

mb = 6.0 (307) ML = 5.4 ( 10) mblg = 0.0 ( 0) md = 0.0 ( 0) MS = 0.0 ( 0)

The closest seismo NU.MASN shows nothing - busted - and NU.MGAN it did not even register ?????? Eh, what?? MGAN.NU..BHZ.2011.311

II.JTS is also broken.

That was a fair bit of an area for the ground shake, even though it was not strong shaking, for such a deep quake.


edit on 7/11/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


Finally found one working: HDC.G.00.BHZ.2011.311 and another ESPN.NU..BHZ.2011.311


edit on 7/11/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Some new news on Oklahoma quakes:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And PM, just gave ya my opinion from what I saw, and 5.8 is as high as I go.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 
Thanks for the instruction TA. Appreciate it. I'm sure it won't be the last time I show what a "duemas" I can be.

I should surely just stick to rocks--I know them best. But watching them "crunch" and "slip" is so intriguing. Hope to learn more from you. I think for the foreseeable future I should just watch, read and learn-no posting, lol..

reply to post by PuterMan
 

PM, I should have remembered that was the wonky station. Thanks for the heads up.
edit on 11/7/2011 by Olivine because: I wanted to fix something super secret



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Olivine
 


Don't stop writing. Don't stop asking stupid questions. I do it all the time. I ask the stupidest questions and I can't stop. I wish the gas industry would have asked themselves a stupid question. Like, do you think blasting high pressure fluid underground, under a fault could be dangerous? Do you think we could cause a disaster?

If they were asked, it's a shame no one took answering the question seriously.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


Far from being pathetic I query how

(1) such a small quake was felt at all, let alone felt as far as Newark (20 miles) and
(2) why you can hardly see it on the CWF and WACR seismos (just) but not on STNC (Stoke) yet that seems to have some of it's own(?) and
(3) LMR, your fav seismo only just shows it.


Oh, hello and thank you....I think.?

I have been wondering about Stoke a lot recently, but as you know sir, I am not very good at 'reading' these charts. I am a visual person, so I would need somebody to sit down and actually show me what I should be looking for, I would get it in a jiffy then! Please don't waste your very precious time trying to show me here as I know how kind you are, I will catch up eventually!
I take it LMR still hasn't been moved then?
So to sumarise your points.....have you got an answer to your queries?
Rainbows
Jane



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Question for you TA as I don't use GEE at all. When you load a SAC file it looks different from when you are just looking at a station.

For example what would be the estimated magnitude of this quake?




posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Update on post by muzzy
 

Balleny Islands
The aussies finally got some balls and didn't bow to USGS
6.0Mw it was FINALISED (and they used northern Australian stations at that, not the Canberra or Narrogin stations which are closer to the epicenter)

Weird USGS are sticking to Ms, not their usual magnitude type solution, maybe if they convert it to Mw it will be above 6.0 and make the figures look badder.

The Russians came in with 5.7mb but only used two stations so thats a bit skewed down
GFZ sticking to 5.5 Unk type
and
EMSC down to 5.4mb

you can't tell me that this is a 5.4/5.5 at 2453 km away


edit on 7-11-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I don't work in COUNTS at all, unfortunately. I have to see it in microns/sec or mm/s to match up to my reference experience. You sure that was a quake at all? The onset of the wave in that sig looks more like a man made event. But sigs are deceiving, and easily misread on their own like that. Is why I use amplitude, multiple signatures, propagation, corroborating stations, and what I have already seen over years to make a guess. That's too little info for me to make a guess my friend, sorry.
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


And oh, btw, NU.MGAN.BHZ is totally fried. Toast. But now I am growing suspicious. GE.BOAB on a 5.9, only some 60 miles from epicenter, if that, should have registered in the neighborhood of 2 mm/s. 400 microns/sec? Nuh uh, something's off here. And it's probably me. But still looking into it.
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


Not really a matter of looking at the seismos because the quake was so small, so they say, so it hardly registeres at all. But let's face it a mag 1.6 is way under what is supposed to be felt.

Earthquake Magnitude Scale (effects)

The trace is so small on the seismos that I wonder they even detected it at all, or are there more seismos that we don't know about.

I am thinking Stoke may not have shown it because of the geology. Pennines in the way maybe.

Market Rasen not moved yet - still the same old same old.

Other than that I don't know ma'am (if we are going to be formal
)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Well, guess you got your answer, PM. Global CMT on Nicaragua: 6.0

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...





I can't win for losing. But I try.
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


Ok, I don't like them anymore.

edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Oh it was a quake that is for sure because I can hear it. About 4.32 seconds separation between the P and S components which makes it a distant quake in terms of that location, yet it does not show on WRW so it was not in that direction. I don't think it was an ice quake, but it could have been. Too much below 10 Hz I think.



Sound (Zipped - v small)

You can see it on the seismo here: GPW.UW..EHZ.2011.311

Here is wrw: WRW.UW..EHZ.2011.311

Problem is that this is Glacier Peak and there is nothing around, not even another close seismo. WRW is Lake Chelan.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
We just had another one here in Tulsa, it felt much smaller than the big one, but went on a lot longer than the 4.7 early saturday morning.

Once again, my cell phone can not make calls, which is very frustrating and also very telling about how communication would break down so quickly in a real emergency.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by gluetrap
 


Shook the house way more than the one Sat. here in Joplin



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by gluetrap
 



yes siree. Showing it here in GEE at around 2 mm/s on TA.V35A

Hmm, that's going to be umm, umm....estimate: 4.9 to 5.3 "-" or so...

(God I need to stop doing this)

Edit to add: 4.7 says the USGS
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


lol, which means Global CMT will come in around 4.8 to 4.9....ok, I like them again.

edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


AGAIN I SAY. That's fault's not done moving yet. Lookout.
edit on Mon Nov 7th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
203
<< 358  359  360    362  363  364 >>

log in

join