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: 393
203
<< 390  391  392    394  395  396 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

TextForeshock: An earthquake that is smaller than, and precedes, a "mainshock". Foreshocks tend to occur in the same area as the mainshock.
source(earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca...


TextThe number of hypocenters triggered, n, is given by n  c10 , M (



TextA Common Origin for Aftershocks, Foreshocks, and Multiplets 91 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 Aftershocks/mainshock Doublets/mainshock Solomon



TextTesting Predictions 2–4: Are Foreshocks Just Small Mainshocks? Testing Prediction 2 with the Global Data Set. We test the second prediction of the single-mode triggering model by plotting the number of foreshocks per mainshock versus the number of aftershocks per mainshock in different regions, and we find that aftershock and foreshock rates do vary linearly with each other (Fig. 2). Using the same method as in the Predictions section, we calculate that theoretically according to the single-mode triggering model, foreshock rate  0.134  aftershock rate. (6) The v 2 test indicates that this line cannot be rejected as the function that defines the data set at the 95% confidence level. Since we have calculated that the globally averaged aftershock rate is 0.202 aftershocks/mainshock, equation (6) and binomial probability also predict that the globally averaged foreshock rate should be 0.0271  0.0104 foreshocks/mainshock (98% confidence intervals). We measure an actual average of 0.0238 foreshocks/mainshock, which is well within these confidence limits. However, the scatter for the individual data points is larger than for the aftershock versus doublet plot, probably because there are fewer foreshocks than there are doublets, and the correlation is significant only at the 90% confidence level (r  0.46). Luckily we can also test the foreshock component of the single-mode triggering model with a more comprehensive data set from a single region via the third and fourth predictions of the single-mode triggering model. We do so in the next section.
source(128.197.153.21...




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Hi guys,
I know this really isn’t the right place to post but I figure someone might know what I am talking about.

I have a few questions: Do volcanos have magnetic or gravitational effects??

Would be great if someone could point me in the right direction.
Thanks.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoorfNZ
reply to post by muzzy
 


Nice


Anything to do with the mining there all those wee ones?

members.iinet.net.au...
edit on 6-12-2011 by MoorfNZ because: (no reason given)


Thats what I thought (expected) but if you zoom in closely the events locations don't match up on the scale you would expect.
for example after watching a couple of episodes of Kalgoolie Cops on TV you get pretty familiar with the open cast gold mine there and the scale of it, there is no way in the world they could dig that deep or wide without explosives, yet if you look at the mine at 2km scale there are only 5 quakes that could be explosions and of those only 2 are at 0km (on the fringes of the pit.) Unless they are underground as well, there are a lot of quakes in residential areas that have 0km depth, so 0km must mean 0-1km otherwise there would be some kind of crack there surely.


theres more helpful info on WA siesmicity at
University of WA

Not covered in my 1984 starting map are the three of the most significant earthquakes since the European settlement of WA in 1824, at Meeberrie in 1941, Meckering in 1968, and at Cadoux in 1979, but, if you look through the list of significant quakes and compare with those since 1984, no matter how small they are the same names crop up over and over. A lot of the events on my map may be aftershocks too

The seismic activity at Burakin is close to, but probably not related to, the major (mag 6.1) earthquake at Cadoux in 1979 The Cadoux earthquake had many aftershocks, continuing into the year 2000 and beyond.
*

Not shown on my map are pre 1984 quakes and for some reason mag 6's since
eg this from the UWA for NW WA
date, Lat, Long, location
1906 -19.1 111.8 7.7 unreliable location
1929 -17 120.66 6.6 felt in Broome
1934 -15 112.5 6 approx 500k N of Exmouth - unreliable
1968 -19.1 125.03 6 Canning Basin
1970 -22.05 126.61 6.7 Lake Mackay
1978 -19.55 126.56 6.2 Canning Basin
1979 -16.66 120.27 6.6 off Broome
post 1984
1997 -16.05 124.42 6.3 Cockatoo Is

I might go through that site and get what I can from there and add to the KML file I did last night

edit on 6-12-2011 by muzzy because: looked OK when I typed it , but 4 spelling mistakes


* 21 years of aftershocks
. I often wonder that if you don't believe in Subduction how do you explain earthquakes that happen in the same area over and over and over again year after year after year?, perhaps they are all just aftershocks of some catastrophic monster quakes back 100,000+ years ago ?
edit on 6-12-2011 by muzzy because: found 2 more mistakes, one grammer, one word spacing



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Magnitude mb 6.1
Region KEPULAUAN SULA, INDONESIA
Date time 2011-12-07 13:38:27.1 UTC
Location 1.42 S ; 126.53 E
Depth 2 km
Distances 262 km S Ternate (pop 101,731 ; local time 22:38:27.1 2011-12-07)
256 km SW Tidore (pop 46,149 ; local time 22:38:27.1 2011-12-07)


www.emsc-csem.org...
edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

Magnitude mb 6.1
Region KEPULAUAN SULA, INDONESIA
Date time 2011-12-07 13:38:27.1 UTC
Location 1.42 S ; 126.53 E
Depth 2 km
Distances 262 km S Ternate (pop 101,731 ; local time 22:38:27.1 2011-12-07)
256 km SW Tidore (pop 46,149 ; local time 22:38:27.1 2011-12-07)


www.emsc-csem.org...
edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
Hi Pman,hope you are not annoyed on me,but somehow I think I am right!



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


Excuse me? I don't think I need you to teach me what a foreshock is thank you. Very good of you to offer but...


What I asked you is why do you think that a quake over 700 km away from the first group you referenced is a 'foreshock' within that group as well.


edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


You might well be but it would be nice if you could lay this out a bit more scientifically. There are quakes all over that area. If you have a theory that is great but what you have put forward so far is very vague and covers a huge area.

It needs a bit of refinement.

And no I am not annoyed. I don't get annoyed easily but you sure will know all about it if I do.


ETA: I note that if you are claiming the 6.1/5.8 as the main shock of the others then this is on yet another plate. I really don't think this can be connected to the others as it is over 1500km away.




edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Cheaper at USGS of course


Magnitude 5.8
Date-Time

Wednesday, December 07, 2011 at 13:38:27 UTC
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 at 10:38:27 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 1.453°S, 126.493°E
Depth 16.4 km (10.2 miles)
Region KEPULAUAN SULA, INDONESIA
Distances 266 km (165 miles) SSW of Ternate, Moluccas, Indonesia
311 km (193 miles) NW of Ambon, Moluccas, Indonesia
792 km (492 miles) N of DILI, Timor-Leste
1309 km (813 miles) NNW of DARWIN, Northern Territory, Australia
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 14.2 km (8.8 miles); depth +/- 4.5 km (2.8 miles)
Parameters NST=102, Nph=105, Dmin=416.3 km, Rmss=1.07 sec, Gp= 47°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=8
Source

Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID usc00073gf


earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

I'm curious to know how big this quake ends up being. I caught it on a station in southern Chile, looks bigger than 5.8 to me (but I am still a novice seismogram interpreter, so what do I know, lol).
click to enlarge

It did take 23 minutes to travel to Chile, while the theoretical travel time looks like it should only have been 17 minutes or so. Am I reading the map incorrectly?
edit on 12/7/2011 by Olivine because: I needed to clarify something



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Olivine
 


I am trying to find one closer but in the meantime here is the station you saw it on: GO05.C..BHZ.2011.341 and as a comparison here is the 5th and the 19:38 5.7 in Indonesia is invisible: GO05.C..BHZ.2011.339

I am not sure I understand what USGS are playing at. The phase data says 5.8mb yet they have published it a 5.8 Mw. No way are those two the same. EMSC have 6.1 mb. When I can find a closer on that is working I will see what I think, but on those I am guessing 6.3 Mw - but that is just a guess until I see more data.

ETA: La Paz is not showing it but WTH is the big red splodge? I can't see anything that would do that. Mexico would not reach there. LPAZ.GT.10.SHZ.2011.341


edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


KAPI.II.00.LHZ.2011.341 into the 6es for sure except that DAV.IU.10.BHZ.2011.341 is hardly showing. This is an odd one for sure. Port Moresby, which is almost double the distance is showing more and is showing Tonga PMG.IU.10.BHZ.2011.341

I give up. I think it has to be in the 6 but the LISS version of Port Moresby says maybe not: Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby [IU]


edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

The surface waves (that's the 3rd set to show up, correct?) are making all of the stations I'm watching in northern California go wonky.
Maybe the amplitude scales of the different stations are making the magnitude difficult to discern? The "red splooge" on LaPaz is huge, and the time is right for the Veracruz, Mexico quake. The LaPaz station is shown in 200E-9 m/s (nanometers?), while the GO05.C station for the Indonesian quake of a few minutes ago is in 10E-6 (microns or micrometers?). That's my guess as to why the LaPaz station signal is so huge.

BTW Puterman, do you have instructions for loading data into quackberry on your site? I haven't been able to figure it out--shocking right?

I also need to dig around QVS to see if there is a "basic seismic spectrograms for dummies" section.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Station 56001 - Indian Ocean 1 - 1025km NW of Dampier-In event mode/NDBC


www.ndbc.noaa.gov...

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Olivine
 


ETA: La Paz is not showing it but WTH is the big red splodge? I can't see anything that would do that. Mexico would not reach there. LPAZ.GT.10.SHZ.2011.341



I think the big red splodge is inteference or an error of some kind.

I seen it the other day when looking through some stations that were on the USGS phase data for S of Papua 5.7, this is the one, it has 3 red splodges


AS31.AU..BHE.2011.339 Alice Springs Array

looking through the other stations in the array they have individual varying coloured traces along the 01:00 hour mark www.iris.edu... but not 3 in a line, AS31 is the only one.

Note both your La Paz and AS31 are SHZ channels, not sure if that has any relevance
edit on 7-12-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzy
I think the big red splodge is inteference or an error of some kind.

I think you are right, muzzy. An error didn't even occur to me.

Speaking of errors (or in this case, omissions), I found this here @ emsc-csem.org


Magnitude mb 4.9
Region KURIL ISLANDS
Date time 2011-12-07 14:41:59.3 UTC
Location 47.42 N ; 152.36 E
Depth 129 km
Distances
728 km E Toyohara, yuzhno-sakhalinsk (pop 176,484 ; local time 00:41:59.3 2011-12-08)
698 km NE Nemuro (pop 31,223 ; local time 23:41:59.3 2011-12-07)
306 km SE Vostok (pop 2,779 ; local time 01:41:59.3 2011-12-08)


I don't see it on the USGS list. Do they rate it under a mag 4.5, and that is why it isn't listed?


edit on 12/7/2011 by Olivine because: edit edit edit



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


How you know it in event mode? Where it says dat?

Is you saying it got a bit rocked?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


Now you posted that Alice Springs on I think it may be some form of telemetry signal. There is a thingy whatsit spike I can't remember the name of right after it. Something to do with co-ordination but it just won't come to me


@Olivine: Kuril Islands. Bit odd that. I agree I would have expected USGS to show that one seeing as where it is and the fact that they have reported this low before


Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-11-07 01:46:36, 45.938, 149.135, 5.1, 158.4, Kuril Isls.
2011-11-15 20:28:50, 48.419, 154.738, 4.8, 58.3, Kuril Isls.
2011-11-19 22:05:59, 46.623, 151.475, 5.5, 89.6, Kuril Isls.
2011-11-22 13:18:52, 45.143, 148.851, 4.5, 123.7, Kuril Isls.
2011-11-29 16:35:41, 44.504, 147.121, 4.4, 127.4, Kuril Isls.


USGS listing for the past month for Kuril. These are all mb values.


edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
www.iris.edu...

The word you are searching for is 'Calibration' pulse

Just trying to be helpful


M.

edit on 7-12-2011 by Moshpet because: Life, the universe and everything. 42.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

TextMagnitude 5.9 Date-Time Wednesday, December 07, 2011 at 22:23:07 UTC Wednesday, December 07, 2011 at 07:23:07 PM at epicenter Location 27.866°S, 70.923°W Depth 5 km (3.1 miles) Region ATACAMA, CHILE
source(earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


One has to wonder how they can determine an Mw value so quick when they don't even have the phase data for the mb values yet?

We shall see. This from Paraguay says it is bigger than 5.9. CPUP.GT.00.BHZ.2011.341


edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


Here is the Google Maps link because I just happen to have it in my hand.


edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


One has to wonder how they can determine an Mw value so quick when they don't even have the phase data for the mb values yet?

We shall see. This from Paraguay says it is bigger that 5.9. CPUP.GT.00.BHZ.2011.341


edit on 7/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
I was thinking the same thing but I didn't have the courage to write 'revised'.



new topics

top topics



 
203
<< 390  391  392    394  395  396 >>

log in

join