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: 69
159
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


Thank you for that site... but Im afraid I am not having any luck finding ANY activity from 3-8-2011 to 3-11-2011. All the activity listed is on the 11th but I could have sworn there were some on the 9th... Oh well.




posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by murkraz
 


Thank you for that site... but Im afraid I am not having any luck finding ANY activity from 3-8-2011 to 3-11-2011. All the activity listed is on the 11th but I could have sworn there were some on the 9th... Oh well.

Not a problem.

Yes, it would seem that the first quake was the M7.9 @ 02:45:17 one year to the date today.
edit on 9/3/12 by murkraz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


You mean this which i already posted??

posted on 9-3-2012 @ 03:06 PM this post
Its that time again,,,for long time followers too feel anxious,,well at least i do.


Magnitude 7.3
Date-Time

* Wednesday, March 09, 2011 at 02:45:20 UTC
* Wednesday, March 09, 2011 at 11:45:20 AM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 38.440°N, 142.840°E
Depth 32 km (19.9 miles) set by location program
Region NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN


Me.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Wednesday,


March 09, 2011

at 02:45:20 UTC

see above

Me.
edit on 9-3-2012 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


Got it...I didn't have the lat and long right... they had about 16 or so with a 6.2 being the highest on the 9th. On the 10th about half that many eq's with biggest being a 5.7..then we know what happened on the 11th.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by murkraz
 


You mean this which i already posted??

posted on 9-3-2012 @ 03:06 PM this post
Its that time again,,,for long time followers too feel anxious,,well at least i do.


Magnitude 7.3
Date-Time

* Wednesday, March 09, 2011 at 02:45:20 UTC
* Wednesday, March 09, 2011 at 11:45:20 AM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 38.440°N, 142.840°E
Depth 32 km (19.9 miles) set by location program
Region NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN


Me.


Oh I am soooo sorry! Thank you sooo much. Ok...obviously I have no idea what Im doing and that is why I asked someone to help.

I would love to see what activity the area had on the 9th...like ALL of it on the 9th.

SURELY it can't go down like last year.. I believe anything is possible but ...surely not.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


OMG..ok I took Japan out all together and used the lat and long. It looks like they had 27 eq's higher than a 4.5 on the 9th!!!! WOW!



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Triggered Fault Movement from Baja Quake Reveals Previously Unknown Faults in Southern California


www.usgs.gov...



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

5.5 to 6.0 earthquake is guaranteed to hit San Francisco or Los Angeles between 7am March 9 and 7am March 11. Please see map. (Possible epicenter near San Leandro or Temecula)


www.quakeprediction.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


I used to bother myself checking out their predictions. Seeing as they predict a mag 5 or 6 almost every day i guess one day thy will strike lucky.

Here are a couple of examples from last year. quakewatch.wordpress.com...

That site is a waste of web space.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


"Holy crap Paw! Lookit this here map!"

"Yeah, guess I better top off the B.O.B., Maw"

I have never seen it like this...



BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH
edit on 9-3-2012 by berkeleygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Comon PMan

This guy is doing what he loves to do, just as you do...

Lighten up, I am kinda tired of ye raggin on the man

don't forget this, where those arrows are is where we had those two shakers t'other mornin.


edit on 9-3-2012 by berkeleygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Hellas
 


I used to bother myself checking out their predictions. Seeing as they predict a mag 5 or 6 almost every day i guess one day thy will strike lucky.

Here are a couple of examples from last year. quakewatch.wordpress.com...

That site is a waste of web space.


I do agree with Puterman, and I love a good prediction every few months, but that website, always has predictions that don't come true. They did name it right, they just alway predict wrong.

(Now, they'll probably get it right!)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 


I prefer the term "forecasts" rather than predictions...
doesn't hurt to keep an eye on them



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Anyone watch Lassen Peak in northern California often? I only peek in every so often--there is never much going on. But today there seems to be a small swarm at the SE side of the volcanic area.
Lassen Peak monitoring--CalVO
Cluster of 12 earthquakes--largest was a Mag 1.57


Just thought it was interesting...



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Yes but not this 9th March.


Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2012-03-09 18:19:02, 35.721, 142.057, 5.1, 28.9, Off E. Coast Of Honshu. Japan
2012-03-09 17:25:33, 36.732, 140.528, 5.4, 25.3, Nr. E. Coast Of Honshu. Japan
2012-03-09 17:16:14, 39.552, 143.117, 4.8, 44.4, Off E. Coast Of Honshu. Japan
2012-03-09 05:31:51, 36.914, 142.033, 4.8, 37.9, Off E. Coast Of Honshu. Japan
2012-03-09 03:38:29, 39.360, 144.412, 4.6, 34.9, Off E. Coast Of Honshu. Japan
2012-03-09 02:24:46, 36.578, 141.176, 4.7, 33.7, Nr. E. Coast Of Honshu. Japan


Does anyone seriously think it would happen again on the same day. Be realistic. It won't. Neither will it happen this year, or next probably, in fact there will not be a mag 9 there for many many years. There could be a mag 8+ but not a mag 9.

I said on 30th Oct 2011 "In my opinion there is a negligible chance of a mag 9.0 earthquake in the same location as the 9.1 in March for many years to come, and certainly not by February. " in response to Hokkaido University. That was in this thread.

It is now March. It has not happened. It will not happen. Not in the same area.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by berkeleygal
 



This guy is doing what he loves to do, just as you do...

Lighten up, I am kinda tired of ye raggin on the man


Excuse me? Raggin on him? Tired of it? How many times have I done so pray?

No doubt Alexander Retrov was doing the same i.e. what he loved, and by the way with that number of adverts on the site it is not about earthquakes it is about click-throughs.

As far as I am concerned earthquakes are about being informed. His site does not inform.

But no worry I won't mention him again. You can hang on his every word if you wish. That is your prerogative. Good night all.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
Ok... here we are in March..almost the 11th and Japan looks like it is on shaky ground..
Can any handy dandy person pull up this time last year in Japan and post it for me? Please


It looks as if it is swarming ....but maybe just MAYBE I am a little on the paranoid side.

edit on 9-3-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)


On 3/9/11 at 04:26:38 UTC, the USGS site (Latest earthquakes in the world, last 7 days) listed 222 earthquakes. By Sat, 03/12/11 04:12:44 UTC, there were 396 earthquakes listed. For the Japan area alone, in the zoomed to Asia area, there were listed 190 quakes. I will post this image in a sec.


edit on 9-3-2012 by Gridrebel because: add image



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnVidale
 

Hello John; I'd like to add my welcome to those of the other, more regular contributors to this thread. That Chris Goldfinger document you have linked to is one heck of a read and so far I've only gone through the first part, on Cascadia Turbidites. Fascinating stuff and a very valuable piece of work.

Down to details: the clustering concept seems to be well demonstrated by the given data -- especially via the graphical representations -- and it leaves me to wonder what causative mechanisms might be in play here. Also, as the analyses that consider the probabilities of a future M9 event with a given time show quite a degree of variance, I'd be curious to know which, if any, tend to be favoured by experts as most reliable and on what basis. I am particularly referrring to Goldfinger's statements in the penultimate paragraph under the "conclusions" section.

In that same paragraph, where Goldfingers says "if the turbidite mass represents a proxy for magnitude", I have a big question mark against that "if". I follow what he is saying, but at the same time I suspect that conditions for generating a turbidite mass in one location versus another even a relatively short distance away, may be influenced by other factors that could outweigh (or strongly influence) the effects of the assumed energy input from the disturbance caused by a major quake. It just seems to me that the materials available to create the (future, post-quake) turbidite mass are not going to be uniformly available in the same quantities at all sites, and even if they were, there could still be other, local physical factors that influence the mass of turbidite created.

Granted, I expect that Goldfinger et al have taken these considerations into account, but all the same I feel (as a layman, please note!
) that to assign possible magnitudes on the basis of turbidite mass, while at first glance a reasonable methodology, is fraught with danger if the base assumptions as to available material mass, turbidite creation and degree of dispersion are instead taken (more-or-less) as givens.

Even if I'm way off the mark with these comments -- and that may well be the case -- I hope I've made a modicum of sense in presenting my take on this.

Just by the way, I do hope the document will be correctly proofed prior to publication, as it clearly has not been yet: just on my first read-through I found it contains a few small but quite obvious typographical errors and at least one real howler, all of which any half-decent proof reader should have picked up. If you'd like details of what I've found so far to pass on to Chris Goldfinger just let me know.

Best regards,

Mike

edit on 10/3/12 by JustMike because: of the usual plethora of typos. Readers may mentally correct any I have missed!





top topics



 
159
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join