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.

 

Earthquake Swarm in Arkansas Intensifies. Memphis, Tennessee could be epicenter for the next big one

page: 67
287
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


Hello Redcloak, you've made your point. Several times. So you think that the quake was closer to a 9 or even a ten. It was huge. Got it. So there's no point in just repeating it. And everyone else just let if go. We're arguing about events that happened two hundred years ago. We can all agree that it was really really bad. But rehashing the same argument over and over doesn't help us. Redcloak, if you have a thread where you are getting more indepth about the events 1811/12 and want to invite people there, go for it. But I'm not going to be happy if we all get sidetracked trying to argue an event which happened where there were few witnesses and no scientific equipment on the ground. This is the year 2011, and that's where I want the focus. Well, except 1981 Enola. So let's take a breath and make sure the posts are not just a circular argument.




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


I think that most of us who have been following this thread recognize that there were no actual measurements of the 1811-12 EQ, and that any information provided are guesstimates.
I also want to say that this rift between you and Puterman are detracting from the importance of this thread.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


This is pointless. I have already given my sources. How about you give yours "proving" that they are bigger, or stop disrupting this thread.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


I would still like to see your source that disproves the following from USGS.

"The magnitudes of the three principal earthquakes of 1811-1812 described below are the preferred values taken from research involved with producing the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map (pubs.usgs.gov...).

The first principal earthquake, M7.7, occurred at about 2:15 am (local time) in northeast Arkansas on December 16, 1811. The second principal shock, M7.5, occurred in Missouri on January 23, 1812, and the third, M7.7, on February 7, 1812, along the Reelfoot fault in Missouri and Tennessee. The earthquake ground shaking was not limited to these principal main shocks, as there is evidence for a fairly robust aftershock sequence. The first and largest aftershock occurred on December 16, 1811 at about 7:15 am. At least three other large aftershocks are inferred from historical accounts on December 16 and 17. These three events are believed to range between M6.0 and 6.5 in size and to be located in Arkansas and Missouri. This would make a total of seven earthquakes of magnitude M6.0-7.7 occurring in the period December 16, 1811 through February 7, 1812. In total, Otto Nuttli reported more than 200 moderate to large aftershocks in the New Madrid region between December 16, 1811, and March 15, 1812: ten of these were greater than about 6.0; about one hundred were between M5.0 and 5.9; and eighty-nine were in the magnitude 4 range. Nuttli also noted that about eighteen hundred earthquakes of about M3.0 to 4.0 during the same period.

The first earthquake of December 16, 1811 caused only slight damage to man-made structures, mainly because of the sparse population in the epicentral area. The extent of the area that experienced damaging earth motion, which produced Modified Mercalli Intensity greater than or equal to VII, is estimated to be 600,000 square kilometers. However, shaking strong enough to alarm the general population (intensity greater than or equal to V) occurred over an area of 2.5 million square kilometers.

The earthquakes caused the ground to rise and fall - bending the trees until their branches intertwined and opening deep cracks in the ground. Deep seated landslides occurred along the steeper bluffs and hillslides; large areas of land were uplifted permanently; and still larger areas sank and were covered with water that erupted through fissures or craterlets. Huge waves on the Mississippi River overwhelmed many boats and washed others high onto the shore. High banks caved and collapsed into the river; sand bars and points of islands gave way; whole islands disappeared. Surface fault rupturing from these earthquakes has not been detected and was not reported, however. The region most seriously affected was characterized by raised or sunken lands, fissures, sinks, sand blows, and large landslides that covered an area of 78,000 - 129,000 square kilometers, extending from Cairo, Illinois, to Memphis, Tennessee, and from Crowley's Ridge in northeastern Arkansas to Chickasaw Bluffs, Tennessee. Only one life was lost in falling buildings at New Madrid, but chimneys were toppled and log cabins were thrown down as far distant as Cincinnati, Ohio, St. Louis, Missouri, and in many places in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.

The Lake County uplift, about 50 kilometers long and 23 kilometers wide, stands above the surrounding Mississippi River Valley by as much as 10 meters in parts of southwest Kentucky, southeast Missouri, and northwest Tennessee. The uplift apparently resulted from vertical movement along several, ancient, subsurface faults. Most of the uplift occurred during prehistoric earthquakes. A strong correlation exists between modern seismicity and the uplift, indicating that stresses that produced the uplift may still exist today.

Within the Lake County uplift, Tiptonville dome, which is about 14 kilometers in width and 11 kilometers in length, shows the largest upwarping and the highest topographic relief. It is bounded on the east by 3-m high Reelfoot scarp. Although most of Tiptonville dome formed between 200 and 2,000 years ago, additional uplifting deformed the northwest and southeast parts of the dome during the earthquakes of 1811-1812.

A notable area of subsidence that formed during the February 7, 1812, earthquake is Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee, just east of Tiptonville dome on the downdropped side of the Reelfoot scarp. Subsidence there ranged from 1.5 to 6 meters, although larger amounts were reported.

Other areas subsided by as much as 5 meters, although 1.5 to 2.5 meters was more common. Lake St. Francis, in eastern Arkansas, which was formed by subsidence during both prehistoric and the 1811-182 earthquakes, is 64 kilometers long by 1 kilometer wide. Coal and sand were ejected from fissures in the swamp land adjacent to the St. Francis River, and the water level is reported to have risen there by 8 to 9 meters.

Large waves (seiches) were generated on the Mississippi River by seismically-induced ground motions deforming the riverbed. Local uplifts of the ground and water waves moving upstream gave the illusion that the river was flowing upstream. Ponds of water also were agitated noticeably. "

from here,

earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Robin Marks
 


Just to let you know that they are actually still bringing in quakes from yesterday and the day before. I just had several pop up on the screen so the graph I just did may now be slightly out.

I will try and re-do them later.
edit on 21/2/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoSoup4U
I can tell you that I studied the New Madrid Quake of the 1800's about three years ago. I read news paper articles of witness accounts about what transpired. The earthquake was horrendous! One account was from a fella riding his horse in southern Missouri. He said that his horse stopped and would not move. Then it started to lay down while he was on its back. He thought the horse was dying. However, about a minute later the full quake was noticed by the rider. He said the ground was waving like the ocean. The same accounts say that church bells rang in Boston because of the quake!

This fault is not like the typical faults. It is vertical and not horizontal concerning the orientation to the core of the earth. I read on the first page of this thread of a guy who has found big plots of land in Arkansas that is mainly sand. The same accounts from the newspapers in the 1800's said that sand geysers blew sand up to 30 meters/90 feet into the air for days. My guess is, the guy that posted on this discovery found one of the spots where one of these geysers was originally. Actually, there are cabins that are a part of Arkansas's tourist attractions where they are standing at about 50 degrees off level to show the effect of the land shifting after the quake.

My question is, how are you preparing for a quake of this magnitude? I am certain that all of the big cities in Tennessee will be demolished. Huntsville, Muscle Shoals and Birmingham Alabama will probably be decimated as well. This is because all of the buildings in these areas are pure brick and mortar. The fall out from a quake of the magnitude of the 1800's will absolutely throw the Southeast and parts of the Mid-West back into the early 1900's. Furthermore, I have no idea how you can prepare for something like this. I guess, just pray that the Lord will protect you because something like this I would consider an act of God! Anyway, keep up the good work on this thread. Watch, prepare and pray!


Unfortunately, this is true. The reality is that cities like Little Rock, Memphis, Saint Louis just are not prepared for this. They don't have proper building codes and designs. The death toll will be severe if and when a future quakes hits the region, largely because of the way the buildings are designed.

Yesterday, I called a friend of mine that works for FEMA and I asked them about the issue with the dams and the possible flooding in the region. The response was not good. They have simulations that show parts of areas around Branson, Missouri being devastated by flooding because of dam breaking. The same thing in other places like Mountain Home, Arkansas. Casualties are estimated to be very high due to that.

So even in places where you might not even think about heavy casualties it can happen. There is also I believe a nuclear power plant in the Russellville, Arkansas area. It would not be good if it was compromised and it probably would be.

Then of course there are all of the extensive gas lines that run around the Mississippi River. It's scary to imagine all of them blowing, which they probably would. I would not want to be anywhere near the river region when they blow.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
justsaying, your post prompted me to google newmadrid preparadness just out of idle curiosity. The first result was 2007 senate discussion probability of New Madrid quake. www.asce.org... The scientist quoted 7-10 percent chance of another quake the size of 1811-1812 happening again.
There was a seminar in Feb last year, prompted by the anniversary of the !811-1812 quake, www.ksdk.com... The government is preparing for FEMA test in May, I just hope they aren't too late is all. You can find that referenced in the list of links previously posted. The one like I can't remember where is was a statement at the end of two mainstream media articles was the government suggests having an emergency survival bag at the ready. This was either Friday evening or Sat during the day. I thought I was going to fall off my chair! Finally, the first glimmer of public notification. I agree, there is not enough social preparedness. Basically from what I am gathering the overall context, is folks are going to be on their own for awhile, till basic infrastructure like electricity, water, roads are reset. When I was in elementary school we had tornado drill, cause I am in a prone area for such. Was excited to tell my mom, look how we are being prepared, she's say "Oh honey, when I was in school, we did the duck and hide thing." And she would explain how this was mandated by the government to prepare school children, however misguided, for nuclear attacks. Granted getting under the desks isn't going to protect you from radiation, I felt it was at least some movement toward getting or keeping the American public apprised on a national threat level. I always felt gypped. Then when Katrina hit New Orleans it just proved how out of preparedness and lackadaisical our nation has become as a whole. Communities that have been complete wiped away by tornadoes, no one came to help them clean up. They had to do it on their own. Given the government is a bit aware of the potential, if not the hastening of earthquakes in the New Madrid region, hence why are we having a FEMA resources test in that specific area. In Louisville KY several years ago, there was a similar test of Emergency Response teams as part of an on going training. Others mentioned police training is up in new areas as well. As far as public notifications go, they are going to blast notices unless things are actually occurring, to delay chaos and pandemonium as possible. The EBS was originally set up for the presidents address notification to general public. en.wikipedia.org... Feb 4 2011First National Emergency Alert System (EAS) Test Ordered. www.emergencymgmt.com...
What all this boils down to is the government is catching back up to speed. Since before the end of the cold war they didn't put jack into public defense, DES offices closed all over my area. And now its reloading, cause because with all that has happened since the 1960s, 70s, 80s, they realized with Katrina how ill prepared we actually are to survive any kind of disaster, rebuilding is a bigger challenge, but one step at a time, at least they see we gotta get through any kind of disaster first. Personally the msm is guided by many resources, they follow what we the general public are saying. (yes, dropping in to ATS as well) and I am sure there are FCC guidelines as well as other unknowns. How often had you seen an article on the net, then moments later go back and cant find the darn thing. It was sensitive, too sensitive to let out, without bigger reprocussions. We are doing a greater service, by monitoring earthquake activities and animal response, human response, those who understand and study these things can give a clearer interpretation on just where along we may be during the onset of any kind of event.

I will suggest justsaying that A)have a BoB, BugOutBag, if you are in a predominate area for related events. I have two one in my car incase I am away from home another at home if we have to evac further. B) relax, observe, learn, C) Have A Plan, of some kind so in a event you don't go stark raving mad, and can help others who may be less prepared. Does your occupation put you where you might serve a greater good in your area, aka nursing etc.? Think less severe, what if it was just food and utilities, how prepared are you. I personally am staying home. Visit the survial threads to tips and tricks. If I go down with the ship so to speak, then I was where I was suppose to be anyway.
This thread is monitor active seismos for the swarming, always good to stay informed. Investigate and ask questions.
Peace to all
your friend in threads.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robin Marks
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


Hello Redcloak, you've made your point. Several times. So you think that the quake was closer to a 9 or even a ten. It was huge. Got it. So there's no point in just repeating it. And everyone else just let if go. We're arguing about events that happened two hundred years ago. We can all agree that it was really really bad. But rehashing the same argument over and over doesn't help us. Redcloak, if you have a thread where you are getting more indepth about the events 1811/12 and want to invite people there, go for it. But I'm not going to be happy if we all get sidetracked trying to argue an event which happened where there were few witnesses and no scientific equipment on the ground. This is the year 2011, and that's where I want the focus. Well, except 1981 Enola. So let's take a breath and make sure the posts are not just a circular argument.


I understand. But that's not what I am arguing. Some people that post in the New Madrid topics, including this one, post estimates, which are really nothing but imaginary numbers and nothing else in a way as if they are factual.

They present it that way and they get really testy and argumentative if you point out that those data are not actually real. They also present this basically made up data in a flashy and authoritative way as to seem like they are legit and almost in a tone of being an expert on the matter.

Believe it or not, there are some people reading these threads that don't know any better. So they take it as a fact. All I am saying is that from now on, people need to explain that if it says 7.3 1811 quake that is just some random number that someone just threw on the quake and that is it. And it is NOT based on "damage the quakes did".

I am a geologist and I guarantee you that it is not based on damage the quakes did. It's not physically possibly to cause a tsunami of that size in a body of that volume of water unless the quake is at least a 9 or higher. So all I am saying is and asking is that we should explain that when a source says something like "1812 quake 7.5" that it should be noted that is just a number they threw on it. And sorry, to puterman, but it is NOT based on damage done by the quake.

Physically impossible to cause the topographical changes that those quakes did and be under 9. That's all I'm saying. Just asking, that people make that distinction. "1812 7.5 quake estimated by X whatever".

But to kindly, not make posts that imply that these are facts. Maybe puterman does not honestly realize it (I will assume this is the case here and that he is acting in good faith), but when you post in that manner, it makes some people that don't know much about earthquakes say, "oh a 7.3 it's not that bad. I don't really need to prepare or worry where I am at. 50 miles from that 7.3 earthquake I am safe."

Minimizing the danger, to the point of being totally unrealistic is probably not the best way to get people to become proactive in their own safety preparation. That's all I am saying. I don't care what anyone THINKS the danger of the power of the fault is. But I don't think it's right to falsely paint a rosier scenario than what is actually true either.

Because some people just won't take the threat as seriously as they should. I'm only posting in these threads because I think people that live in the area should know that it really is a dangerous area because the fault line is about 20 years over due for a large quake.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 



I am a geologist


If you can provide proof of that then I will happily leave all the geological evidence, graphs, calculations etc in this thread to you and go and dig my garden in the knowledge that the thread is in the safe hands of an expert with much better qualification to portray them than myself.

Once you have provided the proof you won't mind if I ask you some questions, perhaps in another thread, as I have many geological questions on which I would like to get an opinion from an expert.

edit on 21/2/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


Red Cloak. Would like to hear your opinion as to the possible danger and damage to Southern Illinois.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by herenow
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


I would still like to see your source that disproves the following from USGS.

"The magnitudes of the three principal earthquakes of 1811-1812 described below are the preferred values taken from research involved with producing the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map (pubs.usgs.gov...).

The first principal earthquake, M7.7, occurred at about 2:15 am (local time) in northeast Arkansas on December 16, 1811. The second principal shock, M7.5, occurred in Missouri on January 23, 1812, and the third, M7.7, on February 7, 1812, along the Reelfoot fault in Missouri and Tennessee. The earthquake ground shaking was not limited to these principal main shocks, as there is evidence for a fairly robust aftershock sequence. The first and largest aftershock occurred on December 16, 1811 at about 7:15 am. At least three other large aftershocks are inferred from historical accounts on December 16 and 17. These three events are believed to range between M6.0 and 6.5 in size and to be located in Arkansas and Missouri. This would make a total of seven earthquakes of magnitude M6.0-7.7 occurring in the period December 16, 1811 through February 7, 1812. In total, Otto Nuttli reported more than 200 moderate to large aftershocks in the New Madrid region between December 16, 1811, and March 15, 1812: ten of these were greater than about 6.0; about one hundred were between M5.0 and 5.9; and eighty-nine were in the magnitude 4 range. Nuttli also noted that about eighteen hundred earthquakes of about M3.0 to 4.0 during the same period.

The first earthquake of December 16, 1811 caused only slight damage to man-made structures, mainly because of the sparse population in the epicentral area. The extent of the area that experienced damaging earth motion, which produced Modified Mercalli Intensity greater than or equal to VII, is estimated to be 600,000 square kilometers. However, shaking strong enough to alarm the general population (intensity greater than or equal to V) occurred over an area of 2.5 million square kilometers.

The earthquakes caused the ground to rise and fall - bending the trees until their branches intertwined and opening deep cracks in the ground. Deep seated landslides occurred along the steeper bluffs and hillslides; large areas of land were uplifted permanently; and still larger areas sank and were covered with water that erupted through fissures or craterlets. Huge waves on the Mississippi River overwhelmed many boats and washed others high onto the shore. High banks caved and collapsed into the river; sand bars and points of islands gave way; whole islands disappeared. Surface fault rupturing from these earthquakes has not been detected and was not reported, however. The region most seriously affected was characterized by raised or sunken lands, fissures, sinks, sand blows, and large landslides that covered an area of 78,000 - 129,000 square kilometers, extending from Cairo, Illinois, to Memphis, Tennessee, and from Crowley's Ridge in northeastern Arkansas to Chickasaw Bluffs, Tennessee. Only one life was lost in falling buildings at New Madrid, but chimneys were toppled and log cabins were thrown down as far distant as Cincinnati, Ohio, St. Louis, Missouri, and in many places in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.

The Lake County uplift, about 50 kilometers long and 23 kilometers wide, stands above the surrounding Mississippi River Valley by as much as 10 meters in parts of southwest Kentucky, southeast Missouri, and northwest Tennessee. The uplift apparently resulted from vertical movement along several, ancient, subsurface faults. Most of the uplift occurred during prehistoric earthquakes. A strong correlation exists between modern seismicity and the uplift, indicating that stresses that produced the uplift may still exist today.

Within the Lake County uplift, Tiptonville dome, which is about 14 kilometers in width and 11 kilometers in length, shows the largest upwarping and the highest topographic relief. It is bounded on the east by 3-m high Reelfoot scarp. Although most of Tiptonville dome formed between 200 and 2,000 years ago, additional uplifting deformed the northwest and southeast parts of the dome during the earthquakes of 1811-1812.

A notable area of subsidence that formed during the February 7, 1812, earthquake is Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee, just east of Tiptonville dome on the downdropped side of the Reelfoot scarp. Subsidence there ranged from 1.5 to 6 meters, although larger amounts were reported.

Other areas subsided by as much as 5 meters, although 1.5 to 2.5 meters was more common. Lake St. Francis, in eastern Arkansas, which was formed by subsidence during both prehistoric and the 1811-182 earthquakes, is 64 kilometers long by 1 kilometer wide. Coal and sand were ejected from fissures in the swamp land adjacent to the St. Francis River, and the water level is reported to have risen there by 8 to 9 meters.

Large waves (seiches) were generated on the Mississippi River by seismically-induced ground motions deforming the riverbed. Local uplifts of the ground and water waves moving upstream gave the illusion that the river was flowing upstream. Ponds of water also were agitated noticeably. "

from here,

earthquake.usgs.gov...


The USGS does not even list that there were 5 main quakes. They don't even give 2 of the quakes as even happening. Even though all accounts from the time over many states all say there were 5 quakes. There are many hilarious things here basically.

7.7 quake supposedly was felt over 2.5 million square kilometers. Basically impossible. They also assert damage to property that is not accurate. Almost all structures within 250 miles were destroyed. 7 quakes cannot do that. You want the truth?

Add about +2 to the estimates and you are in the ball park. What so many of you are doing is taking all this data and these estimates and then saying, "well it is calculated". But you see it actually isn't. Because 7 quakes cannot do any of the topographical damage that happened.

At Reel Foot Lake, there are trees that are broken off about 3-5 feet from their base. They then have a new set of roots where they regrew after the quake. There are damages over about 150,000 acres of forest like this. 7 quakes cannot do that.

They cannot break apart hundreds of year old trees that are over 30 feet around in half at the base and eject them into the air. Which is what happened because the trunks have been found scattered all over, even far away at the lake area. Of course some of that can be accounted by the ground rolling, but the wave motion of the earth needed to do that is many levels over any 7 type quake.

It's never been seen in any quake known by man other than in those quakes. This is the problem with these "estimates". They are based on nothing at all. The energy required to break off hundreds of year old trees and snap them clear off like twigs over 150,000 acres is simply mind boggling. It simply cannot be done by anything less than a 9+ quake. Anyway, Robin Marks is getting pissed about this and I'm not really caring whether people get the real magnitude or not.

If you can't grasp it that's your problem. I just have issue with some of the earlier claims that implied that these estimates weer actual scientific fact, which they are not. That is my issue. I don't care if you can grasp the actual magnitude or not. I just am asking that we try not to pass off estimates as undeniable facts, which has certainly been implied here.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
So I'll catch up on this interesting conversation in a bit...meanwhile, I am picking up on micro quakes much further south now, in Louisiana.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Ok. So first you say this:

Originally posted by Red Cloak
They present it that way and they get really testy and argumentative if you point out that those data are not actually real. They also present this basically made up data in a flashy and authoritative way as to seem like they are legit and almost in a tone of being an expert on the matter.


Then you yourself use that exact authorative way of telling us:

Originally posted by Red Cloak
It's not physically possibly to cause a tsunami of that size in a body of that volume of water unless the quake is at least a 9 or higher.


Here is a link so that you can read up a little about tsunamis: earthsci.org...

Examples from the link:


Examples of Tsunamis generated by Earthquakes

April 1, 1946 - A magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurred near Unimak Island in the Aleutian Islands west of Alaska, near the Alaska Trench. Sediment accumulating in the trench slumped into the trench and generated a tsunami. A lighthouse at Scotch Gap built of steel reinforced concrete was located on shore at an elevation of 14 m above mean low water. The first wave of the tsunami hit the Scotch Gap area 20 minutes after the earthquake, had a run-up 30 m and completely destroyed the lighthouse. 4.5 hours later the same tsunami reached the Hawaiian Islands after traveling at an average speed of 659 km/hr. As it approached the city of Hilo on the Big Island, it slowed to about 47 km/hr (note that even the fastest human cannot run faster than about 35 km/hr) and had a run-up of 18 m above normal high tide. It killed 159 people (90 in Hilo) and caused $25 million in property damage.
May 22, 1960 - A magnitude 8.6 earthquake occurred along the subduction zone off South America. Because the population of Chile (movie clip) is familiar with earthquakes and potential tsunamis, most people along the coast moved to higher ground. 15 minutes after the earthquake, a tsunami with a run-up of 4.5 m hit the coast. The first wave then retreated, dragging broken houses and boats back into the ocean. Many people saw this smooth retreat of the sea as a sign they could ride their boats out to sea and recover some of the property swept away by the first wave. But, about 1 hour later, the second wave traveling at a velocity of 166 km/hr crashed in with a run-up of 8 m. This wave crushed boats along the coast and destroyed coastal buildings. This was followed by a third wave traveling at only 83 km/hr that crashed in later with a run-up of 11 m, destroying all that was left of coastal villages. The resulting causalities listed 909 dead with 834 missing. In Hawaii, a tsunami warning system was in place and the tsunami was expected to arrive at 9:57 AM. It hit at 9:58 AM and 61 people died, mostly sightseers that wanted to watch the wave roll in at close range (obviously they were too close). The tsunami continued across the Pacific Ocean, eventually reaching Japan where it killed an additional 185 people.
March 27, 1964 - The Good Friday Earthquake in Alaska had a magnitude of 8.5 on the Richter Scale. This earthquake also occurred along the subduction zone, and as we saw in our study of earthquakes, caused deformation of the crust where huge blocks where dropped down as much as 2.3 m. Because the coastline of Alaska is sparsely populated, only 122 people died from the tsunami in Alaska. With a tsunami warning system in place in Crescent City, California, all the townspeople moved to higher ground. After watching four successive waves destroy their town, many people returned to the low lying areas to assess the damage to their property. The fifth wave had the largest run-up of 6.3 m and killed 12 people.

September 2, 1992 - A magnitude 7 earthquake off the coast of Nicaragua in Central America occurred along the subduction zone below the Middle America Trench. The earthquake was barely felt by the residents of Nicaragua and was somewhat unusual. A 100 km-long segment of the oceanic lithosphere moved 1 m further below the over riding plate over a period of two minutes. Much energy was released but the ground did not shake very much. Seawater apparently absorbed some of the energy and sent a tsunami onto the coast. Residents had little warning, 150 people died and 13,000 people were left homeless.


It's not all about the magnitude of the quake here. Where the epicentre is and the depth of the water surrounding it comes into play as well. All the examples above are major tsunamis created by quakes that was less then 9.0 so what exactly makes you say:


It's not physically possibly to cause a tsunami of that size in a body of that volume of water unless the quake is at least a 9 or higher.


You are very interrested in getting actual facts presented to you before accepting what others say "in a flashy and authoritative way".
Dare I ask the same from you?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Red Cloak
 



I am a geologist


If you can provide proof of that then I will happily leave all the geological evidence, graphs, calculations etc in this thread to you and go and dig my garden in the knowledge that the thread is in the safe hands of an expert with much better qualification to portray them than myself.

Once you have provided the proof you won't mind if I ask you some questions, perhaps in another thread, as I have many geological questions on which I would like to get an opinion from an expert.


Hey man seriously................I only said that because I felt the need to, since it seems people here don't believe ANYTHING if it is not on USGS.

I am a geologist, but that's really besides the point. I'm not an "expert". Let me explain something to you, most geologists don't have a clue what they are doing and the ones that do usually don't have a job. So IF you were assigned to New Madrid by USGS and IF you gave an accurate report - you would instantly be fired.

But it seems that for whatever reason most people here don't understand that. Anyway, I worked on New Madrid for about 10 years really mostly to be honest as nothing more than a hobby. Most of the evidence I found was alarming and a bit disturbing, but the main thing I can honestly say about it is that the last big quakes were actually a bit small.

There are even some people that believe they were mere foreshocks. There is some evidence that foreshocks occur first and then a bigger event and then that it repeats in a cycle. But there is probably 15,000 to 20,000 years of rock strata evidence in the area. And there is also the big problem that the fault near Little Rock and the fault in Illinois are also part of New Madrid. They are basically just branch fault lines. There is another similar one just about right under Memphis.

And there is a lot of circumstantial evidence of a volcano. I mean it is all there. I never really thought of New Madrid as a subduction zone until recently, but I think the evidence that suggests it is one is mounting. You have the hot springs, you have the natural gas deposits, you have the New Madrid fault, Wabash fault, Marianna's fault, etc. in the area. You have quartz deposits in the area. There is the diamond park also........

If you consider that and the fish and bird die offs, along with the New Madrid activity seemingly appearing to have moved westward - then it suggests to me that Arkansas is most likely setting on top of a large magma chamber. Which would make much more sense for what happens at New Madrid's fault zone.

The official explanation from the USGS and colleges like the University of Memphis for the fault zone frankly do not add up to be honest about it.


edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeniVidi
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


Red Cloak. Would like to hear your opinion as to the possible danger and damage to Southern Illinois.


It depends on where the quakes would hit of course. They could hit right in that area or they could hit way south of there, down around the middle of Mississippi. And, as I already said, it appears that the fault might be moving in a westward direction. This would make sense if there is indeed a magma chamber. Just having quakes as big as the ones 200 years ago can displace that magma chamber if it is there.

So if the quakes occurred in this Guy, Arkansas - Greenbrier, Arkansas area where the earthquake swarm has been happening, or around Beebe, Arkansas where the birds died, or even let's say, if the pressure was relieved somewhere else like Oklahoma, then you of course would be much safer.

If the quakes were to happen relatively in the same area as the last time, then you would definitely be in danger. The ground could fissure, it could liquefy, and there could certainly be damage to structures. In this time, there would certainly be many casualties in that area if the quakes hit in that same general region as 200 years ago.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


Redcloak, I/we do appreciate your expertise, but here's the thing about Members and their loyalties to those who come on consistently and help make as much sense of the things which are so far above most of our heads that we really don't know what to think or make of the evidence that we compile.

I have a loyalty to Puter, not that it has always been so, but he has been here consistently helping to bring light to a crazy time period in our shared history, he will not always be right and yet has proven correct more than not on what he does bring forth, so understand us/him and relax, all are welcome and all are needed.

I am thrilled at your background, and welcome you with open arms, but please dont get caught up in what only comes off as ego stuff with other members who have really helped us to understand these amazing days, weeks, months and future years.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by westcoast
 


Are you catching anything in Missouri?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Well, I think there are some points that it seems most of us agree on:


*Something strange is happening in Arkansas and it most likely is part of the New Madrid

*Most geologists really don't know what they are talking about (granted, there are definately some good ones out there, but I don't think they get heard)

*The media is at the least downplaying the situation, and at the worst helping to cover it up

*There were some very big earthquakes on the New Madrid in the past

*There could be some very big earthquakes on the New Madrid again

*IF there is, there could be massive destruction and loss of life

*No one is really sure what, exactly the New Madrid is

*People need to be made aware of what is happening


Can we agree to disagree on the rest?



EDIT to add: Bigger one coming in right now. at least a 3.0 - 3.3
This is going to be right near the other big ones
I again noticed a definate build up in 'noise' and very small quakes right before.

edit on 21-2-2011 by westcoast because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by westcoast because: info



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


Let's begin with where we agree. Millions of people in the area that would be affected by massive, numberous quakes on or near the New Madrid fault are unaware of the severe damage that would occur. And I agree the quakes in 1811/12 were amazingly destructive. So there's really just a difference in a number of magnitude. As I've said before, let's put that aside because we both know that because of the sandysoils and the fact that it's a mid-continental quake network. This means the siemic waves are passed through the ground without resistance, which means it travels over great distances and affects a great many people. Also, it is not a single event, the quakes set off other faults in other areas, compounding the damage and affects a large area of the United States. The historic accounts also describe people far from the epicenter feeling the quakes. We agree on the most important points so there's no need to keep revisting is without bringing up something new. We both know that liquidification and complex siesmic networks are the real danger.

If you have any new studies, graphs, research or other information that's great. I am honest when I say that I think you should start another thread as a companion to this one. From historical perspective. I am a history buff and would have filled this thread with accounts, details, videos of the 1811/12 earthquakes. But I must repeat that's not the focus here. I'll even go on your thread and discuss the amazing accounts and give my opinion.

Here's what's important now. Westcoast is picking up something possibly brewing in Louisiana. If you have anything concrete about the UGUS please share it. And as a geologist you understand the importance of providing sources. So if you add please make sure it's something new and not just repeating the same argument. Because I agree with most of what you said. My issue is about your presentation. This thread has grown beyond my control because I would respond to each and every person but that's not possible. There's been a real swell give and take out here and it's helping lots of people understand the subject. But if it turns into a debate on one subject and a clash of personalities, it does a disservice to the discussion and by extension, is a disservice to those that are living in the area.

So if you have something new to say, and there's no personal shots, then you're welcome. But let's bring it down a notch. Maybe you could do me a favor. I'm real, real busy. I got a beautiful son and my time is taken. I'm so interested in the swarm of 1981 in Enola. You could reseach that and check into the Arbuckle injection well 1176 (i think) to the west of Enola. As a geologist you can compare this swarm and the Enola swarm and see if you notice anything that will help us understand this swarm.

As I tell my son. I only get bossy when things aren't running smoothly and there's a problem with communication and collaboration. Thanks again everyone. From the graphs we can see this has been an energetic swarm. And we're getting the smaller quakes so we have a more detailed picture.

I'd be happy if the swarm stopped. Really. But in reality, this swarm could continue for many more weeks or months.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tollon
Ok. So first you say this:

Originally posted by Red Cloak
They present it that way and they get really testy and argumentative if you point out that those data are not actually real. They also present this basically made up data in a flashy and authoritative way as to seem like they are legit and almost in a tone of being an expert on the matter.


Then you yourself use that exact authorative way of telling us:

Originally posted by Red Cloak
It's not physically possibly to cause a tsunami of that size in a body of that volume of water unless the quake is at least a 9 or higher.


Here is a link so that you can read up a little about tsunamis: earthsci.org...

Examples from the link:


Examples of Tsunamis generated by Earthquakes

April 1, 1946 - A magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurred near Unimak Island in the Aleutian Islands west of Alaska, near the Alaska Trench. Sediment accumulating in the trench slumped into the trench and generated a tsunami. A lighthouse at Scotch Gap built of steel reinforced concrete was located on shore at an elevation of 14 m above mean low water. The first wave of the tsunami hit the Scotch Gap area 20 minutes after the earthquake, had a run-up 30 m and completely destroyed the lighthouse. 4.5 hours later the same tsunami reached the Hawaiian Islands after traveling at an average speed of 659 km/hr. As it approached the city of Hilo on the Big Island, it slowed to about 47 km/hr (note that even the fastest human cannot run faster than about 35 km/hr) and had a run-up of 18 m above normal high tide. It killed 159 people (90 in Hilo) and caused $25 million in property damage.
May 22, 1960 - A magnitude 8.6 earthquake occurred along the subduction zone off South America. Because the population of Chile (movie clip) is familiar with earthquakes and potential tsunamis, most people along the coast moved to higher ground. 15 minutes after the earthquake, a tsunami with a run-up of 4.5 m hit the coast. The first wave then retreated, dragging broken houses and boats back into the ocean. Many people saw this smooth retreat of the sea as a sign they could ride their boats out to sea and recover some of the property swept away by the first wave. But, about 1 hour later, the second wave traveling at a velocity of 166 km/hr crashed in with a run-up of 8 m. This wave crushed boats along the coast and destroyed coastal buildings. This was followed by a third wave traveling at only 83 km/hr that crashed in later with a run-up of 11 m, destroying all that was left of coastal villages. The resulting causalities listed 909 dead with 834 missing. In Hawaii, a tsunami warning system was in place and the tsunami was expected to arrive at 9:57 AM. It hit at 9:58 AM and 61 people died, mostly sightseers that wanted to watch the wave roll in at close range (obviously they were too close). The tsunami continued across the Pacific Ocean, eventually reaching Japan where it killed an additional 185 people.
March 27, 1964 - The Good Friday Earthquake in Alaska had a magnitude of 8.5 on the Richter Scale. This earthquake also occurred along the subduction zone, and as we saw in our study of earthquakes, caused deformation of the crust where huge blocks where dropped down as much as 2.3 m. Because the coastline of Alaska is sparsely populated, only 122 people died from the tsunami in Alaska. With a tsunami warning system in place in Crescent City, California, all the townspeople moved to higher ground. After watching four successive waves destroy their town, many people returned to the low lying areas to assess the damage to their property. The fifth wave had the largest run-up of 6.3 m and killed 12 people.

September 2, 1992 - A magnitude 7 earthquake off the coast of Nicaragua in Central America occurred along the subduction zone below the Middle America Trench. The earthquake was barely felt by the residents of Nicaragua and was somewhat unusual. A 100 km-long segment of the oceanic lithosphere moved 1 m further below the over riding plate over a period of two minutes. Much energy was released but the ground did not shake very much. Seawater apparently absorbed some of the energy and sent a tsunami onto the coast. Residents had little warning, 150 people died and 13,000 people were left homeless.


It's not all about the magnitude of the quake here. Where the epicentre is and the depth of the water surrounding it comes into play as well. All the examples above are major tsunamis created by quakes that was less then 9.0 so what exactly makes you say:


It's not physically possibly to cause a tsunami of that size in a body of that volume of water unless the quake is at least a 9 or higher.


You are very interrested in getting actual facts presented to you before accepting what others say "in a flashy and authoritative way".
Dare I ask the same from you?






As I said, a 7 quake cannot generate a tsunami in a river of that volume of water out of that topography. The example you give is like apples and oranges. There was just a flat river area and it created a large tsunami. Think about it.

The only way that could happen is that it moved the banks of the river and formed an embankment, basically formed an island or most probably many islands. This happened because the quakes displaced so much sediment in that region. The area would just be sand, water, basically muddy. So displacing that sediment along with liquefaction happened quickly.

The water would have had to momentarily stop, then reverse direction then flow into this embankment and then cause a tsunami. This means there would have been a drainage of the river and moments where the river would have went low.

The water would then have to come back and end up somewhere also. This is how large lakes were formed by the quakes. In order to move that much sediment, to stop the river, reverse it, bring it back and then to after the tsunami cause new lakes to form due to the change in the elevation of the land..............

On the Mississippi River, which is not only FLAT area but an ENORMOUS volume of water......forming large lakes........

It would without any question in my opinion be physically impossible unless it was a 9.5 quake AT LEAST. If I had to guess, I would say 9.6. There was no geographical feature to the overlay of the land that could cause this to happen, other than the earthquake itself.

I've never known of any quake in the 7 range that did anything like that. Causing a tsunami in an area where the topography will interact with the tide waves is totally different.

The recent 8.8 Chilean quake didn't make a tsunami except in certain areas. Because it needed the right topography to do it. And it should be theoretically easier to generate a tsunami in the ocean because of the tide coming back into bay outlet areas.

Totally different than the banks of the Mississippi River. That's truly something mind boggling - the power that quake had to generate to do that. It had to basically create a tsunami all on its own power and going against the current of that huge river. To my knowledge there is no record of this anywhere else in the world - no matter how big the quake
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
287
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join