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 2012

page: 136
159
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Should we be looking at Alaska? Is this out of the ordinary?:


www.aeic.alaska.edu...




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


13/0502012 7.00.34 Mag 5.3

Zealandia? No such place.

P



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by muzzy
 


13/0502012 7.00.34 Mag 5.3

Zealandia? No such place.

P


Really?

didn't even take 10 seconds...



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by muzzy
 


13/0502012 7.00.34 Mag 5.3

Zealandia? No such place.

P


Ummm, maybe you should do some research?


ZEALANDIA



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Another over five in the same spot in the Southern ocean.

Macquarie Island Region, New Zealand Region.
Magnitude: 5.3 (Mb)
Depth: 21 km
Tsunamigenic: Not available

Date and Time
UTC: 13 May 2012 @ 04:42:49
Sydney Time: 13 May 2012 @ 14:42:49 (AEST)

Location
Coordinates: -58.264, 158.312

Solution status
Last updated: 13 May 2012 @ 17:50:19 (AEST)
Solution finalised: No
Source: AUST

Geoscience Aust



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Well, you learn something every day.

hisz.rsoe.hu... gives the location as Tasmania, being the closest land fall.

P



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

and
reply to post by SpaceJockey1
 



Yeah right on

Maybe pheonix358 was thinking of the mythical name for it Tasmantis

I've never heard that one before.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


I was referring to all the others along the Antarctic Plate edge in the last 7 days
g.co...

That Macquarie is closer to Invercargill,NZ than Tasmania by 300km
And its not even Macquarie Is anyway its the Hjorst Trench according to USGS co-ordinates

that RSOE is wrong
I don't use it.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I don't trust USGS, too many missing quakes.

Macquarie Is is in Australia. The first series were under Tasmania then they moved Easterly.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Magnitude mb 4.5
Region AZERBAIJAN
Date time 2012-05-14 06:46:23.0 UTC
Location 38.70 N ; 48.66 E
Depth 20 km
Distances 214 km SW Baku (pop 1,116,513 ; local time 11:46:23.8 2012-05-14)
59 km NE Ardabil (pop 410,753 ; local time 10:16:23.8 2012-05-14)
17 km W Lankaran (pop 48,962 ; local time 11:46:23.8 2012-05-14)
12 km SW Haftoni (pop 2,003 ; local time 11:46:23.8 2012-05-14)


EMSC



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 



I don't trust USGS, too many missing quakes.

Macquarie Is is in Australia. The first series were under Tasmania then they moved Easterly.


I don't trust any of them


Macquarie seismologically speaking is in Macquarie according to the Flinn-Engdahl classifications. There are two relating to Macquarie:

North Of Macquarie Island (11/165)
Macquarie Island Region (11/167)

This provides a location that is understood by seismologists and is pretty much politically neutral.

By the same token one would refer to the Falklands as:

Falkland Islands Region (10/148)

Any global provider should use the FE region names and most do but where the feed is picked up by web sites and only contains lat/lon then the resulting location name will depend on the software they are using to do the checking and these vary.

In populated areas further qualification by a county, province, administrative area, or city and/or town is OK but the USGS habit on the newfangledinteractivemapthingy of referring to offshore locations by the name of the nearest town on land is HIGHLY confusing and EXCEEDINGLY stupid when they don't mention off shore.

Example "M6.2 - Isangel, Vanuatu" as given for a quake on the newfangledinteractivemapthingy.

No the earthquake was 84 km OFFSHORE Isangel, Vanuatu. They seem to be able to manage it for some but not for others. "M6.2 84km Offshore Isangel, Vanuatu" would be much better.

I looked at "Brandon, Oregon" the other day for the 5.9/6.0 and for a second went OMG, until I realised it was USGS being stupid. It should have said "Offshore Brandon, Oregon".

When all the quakes were going off after Japan last year it was a nightmare.

Whilst we did get "Offshore ...." we also got "Near the Coast of ...." which actually most of the time meant on land

Why? "Near the coast of" could also be offshore. If it is on land then state the proximate city. If it is in the water state "Offshore". "Near" is a meaningless obfuscation.

You can imagine the fleeting panic for someone opening the map and seeing "M7.6 New York" when it was say 120 km offshore New York.

If you are going to quote a town or city it should by ONLY for earthquakes on land unless you specify as in the above example "M7.6 120km Offshore New York, USA", or alternatively "M7.6 Offshore East Coast of the United States of America".

I guess the problem is probably that the computer is stupid and has not a clue as to whether to location it is looking at is in the water or not. Humans are so much better at that sort of thing than computers. Having said that it really should not be too difficult to define polygons for the lands so the poor dumb computer can work it out for itself.

There, I feel better. That has been annoying me for a long time.



edit on 14/5/2012 by PuterMan because: To add clarity using inverted commas which prefer to spend their life upside down like Australians and New Zealanders.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Magnitude 6.2 6.4 mb - Tarapaca Chile


Location map by EMSC (Google Map)
  • Date-Time: Monday, May 14, 2012 @ 10:00:38 UTC
  • Earthquake location: 17.866°S, 69.589°W,
  • Earthquake depth: 100.0 km
  • Distances:
    675 km W Santa cruz (pop 1,342,604 ; local time 06:00:38.6 2012-05-14)
    156 km SE Yunguyo (pop 10,164 ; local time 05:00:38.6 2012-05-14)
    72 km E Tacna (pop 280,098 ; local time 06:00:38.6 2012-05-14)
    53 km SE Tarata (pop 4,914 ; local time 05:00:38.6 2012-05-14)
  • Event ID: 266508

Derived from Event Data Source: EMSC
Powered by QVSData

This area is a potential for a much larger quake so this could be a foreshock of things to come.

edit on 14/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


 

EMSC uplifted to 6.4 mb. Closer to GFZ


edit on 14/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Oh, and guess what PM???

That was exactly on the area of my DREAM prediction last month!!!


Though I'm sure it was a larger red dot in my dream, it couldn't have been anymore accurate for area.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaceJockey1
 



Though I'm sure it was a larger red dot in my dream, it couldn't have been anymore accurate for area.


Give it time. Like I said that area is due for a big one and it can produce high end Mag 8s which in modern time calculations (Mw) may be Mag 9s

It seems that USGS think it is a 5.9 Mw

Magnitude 5.9 Mw - Tarapaca. Chile


Location in Google Maps
  • Date-Time: Monday, May 14, 2012 @ 10:00:30 UTC
  • Earthquake location: 17.721°S, 69.699°W,
  • Earthquake depth: 22.3 km
  • Distances:
    44km (27mi) SE of Tarata, Peru
    66km (41mi) ENE of Tacna, Peru
    105km (65mi) NE of Arica, Chile
    143km (88mi) ESE of Moquegua, Peru
    213km (132mi) SW of La Paz, Bolivia
  • Event ID: usb0009pcc

Derived from Event Data Source: USGS
Powered by QVSData

We shall see.

Potsdam think it is a 6.5 but the scale is not stated.

geofon.gfz-potsdam.de...

This WILL be a mag 6+ on USGS eventually I believe.
edit on 14/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


 

USGS now have 6.2 Mw in a fast moment tensor

earthquake.usgs.gov...


edit on 14/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


Magnitude 6.2 Mw - TARAPACA, CHILE - Just changed on USGS


edit on 14/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

 

GFZ Potsdam now have the tensor calculation 6.2 Mw
geofon.gfz-potsdam.de...


edit on 14/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Yes, I remember your post at the time with a mock-up image, and mentioning the possibility of a 9+ for that area.

Now that we are in my 14th of May prediction period, and got our first 6+ quake since May 1st, I almost don't want to turn off my laptop and go to sleep, in case I miss the big one!

Man I would have been dancing if this had been a 7+ (as long as no one got killed of course)

edit on 14-5-2012 by SpaceJockey1 because: added line



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
update to post by PuterMan
 


LDEO have now calculated and have 6.3 Mw


2012 5 14 10 0 48.0 -18.25 -70.75 33.0 6.3 NEAR COAST OF NORTHERN CHILE


"NEAR COAST OF"



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Re: your

"NEAR COAST OF"


Well, seeing as they have the location at -18.25 -70.75, which is just off the coast there, I guess it's fair enough for them to say that's where it is
-- even if other sources have it on dry land.


I wonder why their location is so far off compared to the others?


Also, I notice that LDEO is using a default depth of 33km -- as it has for all other quakes on the page you've linked to at their site. Again, I wonder why. It just seems odd, seeing as the depth data must be available to them. Okay, there is a small discrepancy between USGS (currently 98.3 km deep) and ESMC (at 104km), but for LDEO to list it with a 33km default depth is puzzling (to me, anyway).

Puterman, would you consider LDEO as a reasonably reliable source, generally speaking? (I'd seriously like to know, as I'm not very familiar with them.)

Thanks and best regards,

Mike

edit on 14/5/12 by JustMike because: typos. A quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Pack my box with five dozen liquor jugs.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Re:Chile/Peru/Bolivia Quake

Strange ( or maybe not) USGS don't have any mb readings on their phase data

Too bad, I wanted to try out the formulas I found on a publication from Geofon (sent to me by Puterman) that has some conversion formulas to convert various magnitude types to MW.
The formulas relates to a study of Vanuatu, so I'm not sure if they apply globally or each region has a different formula.
The formulas are;
Mw = 1.2690MS - 1.0436 for the USGS/NEIC catalogue
Mw = 1.2765MS - 1.0825 for the Engdahl catalogue (Centennial)
Mw = 0.7813mb + 1.5175 for the USGS/NEIC catalogue
Mw = 0.7601mb + 1.6562 for the Engdahl catalogue (Centennial)
Mw = 1.0583MC + 0.1765
Mw = 0.6960ML + 1.7738

Converting that to Excel formulas, for example for ML, "=SUM(ML)*0.696+1.7738" these are the results I got;

RAS have
mb: 6.3/6
when you add them up and divide by 6 the average is 6.26mb
convert that using the formula Mw = 0.7813mb + 1.5175
and you get 6.41Mw

on EMSC they have 145 mb readings, average is [color=1589FF]6.133mb
using the same formula thats [color=1589FF]6.30Mw


using GDF figure of [color=D462FF]6.4ML
and the formula Mw = 0.6960ML + 1.7738
we get [color=D462FF]6.23 Mw
however on that page they quote their own reading of 6.5Mw

I did the MS conversion using the Global CMT solution which came out at 6.82Mw which is pretty high. Usually Mw and MS are not too far apart, so that formula may be faulty.

At the end of the day it looks like the Mw reading you get depends on what type of magnitude you use to start with..

USGS have this on their technical summary page
Magnitude 6.2 Mwb ± 0.04
so perhaps we could say Muzzys Mw estimate for the Chile/Peru/Bolivia quake of 2012/05/14 10:00:40.2 would be [color=00FF00]6.31Mw ± 0.9, about the same as LDEO

The mb and ML formula look useful, I'll keep an eye on future bigger quakes and do the conversion again to see how accurate it may be.

FWIW the Peruvians have 6.1ML (that page will change when the next one hits)

edit on 14-5-2012 by muzzy because: add some color




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 

I'm keeping track of LDEO here to see how reliable they really are.
password is atsquakewatchers

After 3 days tracking it looks like they change the details around just like the rest of the Networks.

Need to get onto updating that



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 

Thanks for that!


In this case, if they change the data around to have the Chile quake somewhere closer to where the others say it is, maybe that'll be a good thing.


Best regards,

Mike



new topics

top topics



 
159
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join