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.

 

Check Out Yellowstone Observatory Seismographs YMR, YJC and YUF.... What's UP?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Something is happening at Yellowstone. The seismographs for yesterday(June 21, and 22, 2011) today are abnormal for YJC and YUF. YNR has been off line for quite a while too. These new ones are in the area not that far from YNR and we already know that the area is bulging around there. There have been small quake swarms around there too lately. It appears that something is going on, but WHAT?

I don't know how to do links, but you can check it out at YVO on USGS under earthquake monitoring data real time.
I didn't put this on page 700 of a current Yellowstone thread, because I thought it was important for people to see.

What do you guys think? YJC and YUF are not far from YNR and that's been off line for a long time again. That area has been bulging according to geologists and the earthquakes could be making the underlying rock destabilized. I'm no expert, just concerned by what I see.

Comments please!

edit on 22-6-2011 by kissitgoodbye because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I get instant alerts on my phone when any EQ is over 6, but 6-7 are really not all that powerful.. they can do some damage but the richter scale is on a curve, it's not linear .. so 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 .. etc.. are not evenly spaced.. when you get to 7-8, 8-9 they take a MASSIVE jump in strength.. the biggest concern with quakes like these are tsunamis, or hitting in populated areas that aren't properly fortified for earthquakes ..

There's certainly a lot of seismic activity going on and I wouldn't be shocked if another major quake hit along the ring of fire.. I fear California is due for one but I hope not.. it's been a while and they are right in line for one.. it's frightening but it could happen at any time.. whenever there's a major event in the ring, it triggers others along the ring..
edit on 22-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Japan had two quakes,
6.7 and 4 seconds later a 6.8.
They don't need anymore quakes



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Thanks for your comments! I agree with you. I think California is due too. I hope for the best for everybody! These straight lines of energy from the quakes in Japan and Chile go right up to Yellowstone. I guess that's part of why I like to hear what others like you think about the situation. I know Long Valley is getting a lot of this energy too. Stay Safe!
K



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Two guys on GLP, you might talk smack about GLP. But they track the flow of Earthquakes. By the way it's going, it's all in the ring of fire.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
I get instant alerts on my phone when any EQ is over 6, but 6-7 are really not all that powerful.. they can do some damage but the richter scale is on a curve, it's not linear .. so 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 .. etc.. are not evenly spaced.. when you get to 7-8, 8-9 they take a MASSIVE jump in strength.. the biggest concern with quakes like these are tsunamis, or hitting in populated areas that aren't properly fortified for earthquakes ..

There's certainly a lot of seismic activity going on and I wouldn't be shocked if another major quake hit along the ring of fire.. I fear California is due for one but I hope not.. it's been a while and they are right in line for one.. it's frightening but it could happen at any time.. whenever there's a major event in the ring, it triggers others along the ring..
edit on 22-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


WTH does that have to do with ANY of what the OP asked???????????

And FYI - earthquakes in the 6-7 range, ARE powerful! Lived through MANY in all ranges, including the 7.1 Loma Prieta in 1989 in California. And wasn't it a 6.3 that brought down ChristChurch?!

Geez... go do some REAL research before you come in here and spew. PLEASE!

To the OP... more than likely what you are seeing are the waves, as they travel across the planet, from the 6.7 that hit Japan earlier. Trust me, if the alarm bells were sounding, you would find that happening in the Yellowstone thread, located here:

ATS Thread - What's Going On At Yellowstone?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Yep the west coast of the US has been sitting pretty throughout all of this abnormal weather.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by UtahRosebud


WTH does that have to do with ANY of what the OP asked???????????

And FYI - earthquakes in the 6-7 range, ARE powerful! Lived through MANY in all ranges, including the 7.1 Loma Prieta in 1989 in California. And wasn't it a 6.3 that brought down ChristChurch?!

Geez... go do some REAL research before you come in here and spew. PLEASE!

To the OP... more than likely what you are seeing are the waves, as they travel across the planet, from the 6.7 that hit Japan earlier. Trust me, if the alarm bells were sounding, you would find that happening in the Yellowstone thread, located here:

ATS Thread - What's Going On At Yellowstone?


No need to spit fire... there's considerable strength difference from 6.7 to 7.1 .. do you know how the ricther scale works?



Note the jump from 6-7 ( strong ) to major once you cross 7 .. note the strength curve... it makes the numerical system confusing because of the way the system works on a curve.

I didn't say it's weak.. I also didn't say they don't cause damage.. I've been through some big ones myself in that range. The current scale needs to be retired because it confuses people... Relax a little, would you?

I addressed the OPs question indirectly and he seemed fine with where I was going with it.. of course the seismic events can affect yellowstone.. and when it does I suspect it will be massive.
edit on 22-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Japan had two quakes,
6.7 and 4 seconds later a 6.8.
They don't need anymore quakes


Please provide facts to back that up. According to the USGS, only one quake struck. Here is a list of ALL quakes of magnitude 2.5 and higher for the day:


MAG UTC DATE-TIME
y/m/d h:m:s LAT
deg LON
deg DEPTH
km Region
MAP 3.3 2011/06/22 23:44:00 58.263 -151.225 42.7 KODIAK ISLAND REGION, ALASKA
MAP 3.4 2011/06/22 22:34:38 51.922 -170.958 31.1 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
MAP 5.2 2011/06/22 22:16:56 -21.744 -179.068 554.3 FIJI REGION
MAP 2.8 2011/06/22 22:05:00 58.122 -154.663 78.1 ALASKA PENINSULA
MAP 6.7 2011/06/22 21:50:48 39.980 142.247 32.0 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 5.1 2011/06/22 20:43:48 37.612 144.329 10.6 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 3.1 2011/06/22 20:00:16 39.324 -119.987 6.3 NEVADA
MAP 3.3 2011/06/22 19:59:51 39.318 -119.978 7.1 NEVADA
MAP 4.3 2011/06/22 16:58:50 42.708 138.402 234.1 EASTERN SEA OF JAPAN
MAP 2.8 2011/06/22 16:37:59 18.212 -65.056 55.4 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
MAP 2.5 2011/06/22 15:49:50 63.217 -150.396 128.2 CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP 4.7 2011/06/22 15:48:28 33.958 89.333 41.8 WESTERN XIZANG
MAP 5.2 2011/06/22 14:28:59 40.040 142.769 40.9 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 5.3 2011/06/22 13:57:31 -27.920 -66.501 163.4 CATAMARCA, ARGENTINA
MAP 4.7 2011/06/22 11:55:59 33.884 89.274 51.7 WESTERN XIZANG
MAP 4.6 2011/06/22 11:35:10 35.538 141.058 38.5 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 2.7 2011/06/22 11:33:51 31.863 -114.983 10.0 BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
MAP 2.8 2011/06/22 10:54:57 42.203 -121.888 6.1 OREGON
MAP 2.8 2011/06/22 10:33:38 19.158 -68.105 50.9 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
MAP 3.4 2011/06/22 10:30:25 31.872 -114.931 10.0 BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
MAP 3.0 2011/06/22 10:28:48 19.262 -67.941 24.7 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
MAP 2.7 2011/06/22 10:07:30 45.302 -73.099 7.9 ST. LAWRENCE VALLEY REG., QUEBEC, CANADA
MAP 2.9 2011/06/22 07:37:33 18.439 -65.215 87.1 PUERTO RICO REGION
MAP 3.7 2011/06/22 07:18:47 19.507 -66.302 38.4 PUERTO RICO REGION
MAP 2.6 2011/06/22 05:08:38 18.767 -66.726 34.9 PUERTO RICO REGION
MAP 4.8 2011/06/22 04:45:13 25.996 128.394 2.4 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN
MAP 3.2 2011/06/22 03:20:24 59.742 -136.589 5.9 SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
MAP 3.1 2011/06/22 02:00:27 32.076 -116.720 18.8 BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO


Source - USGS



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by UtahRosebud
 


I also want to point out that I said


biggest concern with quakes like these are tsunamis, or hitting in populated areas that aren't properly fortified for earthquakes ..


If a quake in that range hits a populated area that's not properly fortified for it then yes it can be quite a bit more serious.. I never denied that either.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


I suggest you take a look at the USGS website and catch up on what scales they use today, and how they actually measure earthquakes now. "Richter" is pretty much retired and has been for several years.


In 1935, Charles Richter developed the local magnitude, ML scale for moderate-size (3 < ML < 7) earthquakes in southern California. The ML scale is often called the “Richter scale” by the press and the public. All of the currently used methods for measuring earthquake magnitude (ML, duration magnitude mD, surface-wave magnitude MS, teleseismic body-wave magnitude mb, moment magnitude M, etc.) yield results that are consistent with ML. In fact, most modern methods for measuring magnitude were designed to be consistent with the Richter scale. There is some confusion, however, about earthquake magnitude, primarily in the media, because seismologists often no longer follow Richter's original methodology. Richter's original methodology is no longer used because it does not give reliable results when applied to M >= 7 earthquakes and it was not designed to use data from earthquakes recorded at epicentral distances greater than about 600 km. It is, therefore, useful to separate the method and the scale in releasing estimates of magnitude to the public.


Source - USGS Magnitude Policy - Implemented January 18, 2002



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


you are both failing to realize that these happend a ways off shore about 20-22 km deep. It not like they were in the country on land with buildings. They probably hardly felt them as Japan has been experinceing aftershocks since the one in mar.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by emberscott
 


I dont claim to be a prophet or a siesmologist, but I have a feeling Huge one on the west coast sometime between aug11-18th. Again, not trying to fear monger or make waves just what I have gotten from the research I have done



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


No, I'm quite aware of that.. I was alerted when it happened on a nifty iphone app, I've been tracking the activity since the Japan event .. I still worry about offshore events though because they are prone to cause tsunamis, and depending on where they hit they can trigger other events.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
reply to post by UtahRosebud
 


I also want to point out that I said


biggest concern with quakes like these are tsunamis, or hitting in populated areas that aren't properly fortified for earthquakes ..


If a quake in that range hits a populated area that's not properly fortified for it then yes it can be quite a bit more serious.. I never denied that either.


That's great and can definitely be true. However, as the OP was asking about Yellowstone... and Yellowstone happens to be located in the middle of our country, far away from coastlines... please enlighten me on what effects a tsunami would have on Yellowstone?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Well I concur!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by UtahRosebud

Originally posted by miniatus
reply to post by UtahRosebud
 


I also want to point out that I said


biggest concern with quakes like these are tsunamis, or hitting in populated areas that aren't properly fortified for earthquakes ..


If a quake in that range hits a populated area that's not properly fortified for it then yes it can be quite a bit more serious.. I never denied that either.


That's great and can definitely be true. However, as the OP was asking about Yellowstone... and Yellowstone happens to be located in the middle of our country, far away from coastlines... please enlighten me on what effects a tsunami would have on Yellowstone?



I never said these quakes would cause a tsunami at yellowstone.. lol I was commenting to the strength of the quake in question and the risk to people for that magnitude in general.. even on the MMS scale which factors in duration ( obviously a 6.7 lasting 30 seconds is more damaging than one lasting two ) .. these quakes were minor.. the biggest risk is a tsunami, and not for yellowstone.. that would be ridiculous ..

However quakes near the ring of fire can trigger seismic events along the ring and if that in turn triggers a massive event in California, it could very well affect Yellowstone.. I alluded to that later
edit on 22-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by UtahRosebud
 


Thanks for comments Utah. I know you know a lot about this stuff. I have read your comments on other threads, and you rock! I appreciate the info, Really! Stay Safe



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by UtahRosebud

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Japan had two quakes,
6.7 and 4 seconds later a 6.8.
They don't need anymore quakes


Please provide facts to back that up. According to the USGS, only one quake struck. Here is a list of ALL quakes of magnitude 2.5 and higher for the day:


MAG UTC DATE-TIME
y/m/d h:m:s LAT
deg LON
deg DEPTH
km Region
MAP 3.3 2011/06/22 23:44:00 58.263 -151.225 42.7 KODIAK ISLAND REGION, ALASKA
MAP 3.4 2011/06/22 22:34:38 51.922 -170.958 31.1 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
MAP 5.2 2011/06/22 22:16:56 -21.744 -179.068 554.3 FIJI REGION
MAP 2.8 2011/06/22 22:05:00 58.122 -154.663 78.1 ALASKA PENINSULA
MAP 6.7 2011/06/22 21:50:48 39.980 142.247 32.0 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 5.1 2011/06/22 20:43:48 37.612 144.329 10.6 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 3.1 2011/06/22 20:00:16 39.324 -119.987 6.3 NEVADA
MAP 3.3 2011/06/22 19:59:51 39.318 -119.978 7.1 NEVADA
MAP 4.3 2011/06/22 16:58:50 42.708 138.402 234.1 EASTERN SEA OF JAPAN
MAP 2.8 2011/06/22 16:37:59 18.212 -65.056 55.4 VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
MAP 2.5 2011/06/22 15:49:50 63.217 -150.396 128.2 CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP 4.7 2011/06/22 15:48:28 33.958 89.333 41.8 WESTERN XIZANG
MAP 5.2 2011/06/22 14:28:59 40.040 142.769 40.9 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 5.3 2011/06/22 13:57:31 -27.920 -66.501 163.4 CATAMARCA, ARGENTINA
MAP 4.7 2011/06/22 11:55:59 33.884 89.274 51.7 WESTERN XIZANG
MAP 4.6 2011/06/22 11:35:10 35.538 141.058 38.5 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 2.7 2011/06/22 11:33:51 31.863 -114.983 10.0 BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
MAP 2.8 2011/06/22 10:54:57 42.203 -121.888 6.1 OREGON
MAP 2.8 2011/06/22 10:33:38 19.158 -68.105 50.9 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
MAP 3.4 2011/06/22 10:30:25 31.872 -114.931 10.0 BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
MAP 3.0 2011/06/22 10:28:48 19.262 -67.941 24.7 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
MAP 2.7 2011/06/22 10:07:30 45.302 -73.099 7.9 ST. LAWRENCE VALLEY REG., QUEBEC, CANADA
MAP 2.9 2011/06/22 07:37:33 18.439 -65.215 87.1 PUERTO RICO REGION
MAP 3.7 2011/06/22 07:18:47 19.507 -66.302 38.4 PUERTO RICO REGION
MAP 2.6 2011/06/22 05:08:38 18.767 -66.726 34.9 PUERTO RICO REGION
MAP 4.8 2011/06/22 04:45:13 25.996 128.394 2.4 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN
MAP 3.2 2011/06/22 03:20:24 59.742 -136.589 5.9 SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
MAP 3.1 2011/06/22 02:00:27 32.076 -116.720 18.8 BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO


Source - USGS


You know the USGS is known for downgrading quakes right ?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


Downgrading quakes is one thing. Not listing an ACTUAL quake, not likely! There was one earthquake. Again, if you claim there were two earthquakes, back to back, provide your sources and links please.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join