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: 70
159
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   


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.
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Well, no... seriously I didn't but it was a good reminder of what can indeed happen and I am obviously open to all possibilities.


I never knew just how many they had on the 9th but I remembered it was a swarm.... and it was.




posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Magnitude 5.6

Date-Time Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 14:10:39 UTC Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 05:10:39 AM at epicenter Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 55.034°N, 157.539°W Depth 9.9 km (6.2 miles)

Region ALASKA PENINSULA

Distances 131 km (81 miles) ENE of Chernabura Island, Alaska 146 km (90 miles) SSE of Chignik, Alaska 819 km (508 miles) SW of Anchorage, Alaska 1455 km (904 miles) W of JUNEAU, Alaska

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 13.3 km (8.3 miles); depth +/- 4.2 km (2.6 miles)

Parameters NST=468, Nph=576, Dmin=151.4 km, Rmss=1.21 sec, Gp= 40°, M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=8
source(earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


The clustering model is in doubt because some would broaden many aspects of the uncertainty of the measurements. It could be right, but statisticians find it is not yet statistically supported. As I noted in the PNSN blog I linked somewhere above, of the people who believe in the clustering, some think we're still in a cluster and others think the last cluster is over, so cluster theorists have danger estimates at the two extremes of the range proposed.

As you say, any one turbidite flow thickness could represent a lot of things - one hopes the consistency between deposits at multiple sites would argue for other factors not being of primary importance - but again, some others argue for greater uncertainties.

The layering within each turbidites had been taken to indicate the time history of shaking WITHIN each great earthquake, which is nearly certainly a misinterpretation. Each turbidite site should be sensitive to only a small part of the overall rupture of the Cascadia margin.

I think the USGS has professional proof reader, who should iron out most typos. At least they did back when I was with the USGS.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The 'Quake predictor' just twittered this could be likely a foreshock



Magnitude
2.7
Date-Time
Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 17:22:59 UTC
Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 09:22:59 AM at epicenter
Location
37.369°N, 122.139°W
Depth
5.8 km (3.6 miles)
Region
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CALIFORNIA
Distances
0 km (0 miles) SSW (209°) from Los Altos Hills, CA
4 km (2 miles) W (271°) from Los Altos, CA
6 km (4 miles) SSE (159°) from Stanford, CA
10 km (6 miles) W (268°) from Sunnyvale, CA
22 km (14 miles) W (278°) from San Jose City Hall, CA
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 0.1 km (0.1 miles); depth +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles)
Parameters
Nph= 63, Dmin=5 km, Rmss=0.11 sec, Gp= 36°,
M-type=duration magnitude (Md), Version=1
Source
California Integrated Seismic Net:
USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR
Event ID
nc71745995



USGS



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

2012-03-10 19:14:01.0 59min ago 61.34 N 162.94 E 40 4.7 KORYAKIA, RUSSIA

2012-03-10 18:33:21.0 1hr 39min ago 43.33 N 148.01 E 30 5.0 EAST OF KURIL ISLANDS
source(www.emsc-csem.org...



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
16th Mag 5+ for New Zealand this morning


Public ID 2012p188562
Universal Time March 10 2012 at 18:26:16
NZ Daylight Time Sunday, March 11 2012 at 7:26:16 am
Latitude, Longitude -35.13, 179.39
Focal Depth 283 km
Magnitude 5.1
Location 290 km north of Te Araroa


Geonet Rapid - Listing

in fact I can't give you the magnitude to the usual 3 decimal points, as it seems the Rapid thingy isn't connected to the magma search engine, so they seem to be concentrating on this and letting the database languish, only one quake for the 10th UTC listed at the moment, a 2.538ML down Fiordland way.
few others on the GRapid of note, a Mag 4 at Nelson Lakes 2 minutes after the 5.1.
Geonet Rapid - All


edit on 10-3-2012 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



edit on 10-3-2012 by muzzy because: I noticed I copied and pasted the wrong quake




posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Is anyone keeping track of who is getting the most number of 5's so far this year?

My gut feeling it it would be Vanuatu or New Zealand or Japan.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


From a casual observance, I'm going for Japan.

PuterMan probably will have the facts & figures to confirm, I'd imagine.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceJockey1
 


yes you are right, of those three I mentioned japan has had the most.

however the island of New Guinea beats Japan

I used EMSC as they give you a map to help find your lat/long co-ordinates, which USGS doesn't.
Weird how emsc works the search it goes from left lower corner to right upper corner, not the way you would tend to draw a box
I used Geonet for the NZ results.
Included the co-ordinates, may be useful for others who want to do searches of these areas.







posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


Finally came in at 5.396ML

usgs 4.8mb

for some reason usgs didn't use any data from New Zealand



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


Just out of idle curiosity, and because I can switch between the datasets easily, I thought I would look at the mag 5 counts using your box.

This is ANSS data to the end of Feb (because later than that will definitely not have all the quakes) 26 Total


USGS 26 total, but why the different distribution?


EMSC 38 Total. Mm, why is that I wonder?


So I thought we maybe Japan will match EMSC. Nope. The lowest count of them all at 21 (Possibly because they use ML?)


That is quite a wide range. Later on I will add in the mag 4 and 6 and see if that affects the JMO figures.

 

Back again with Mag 4 to 7 (there weren't any 7s). This is actually a very good demonstration of why the posted listings are ultimately completely inaccurate.

USGS @ 118 represents ONLY data that was posted in the 7 day text file (same as the web lists). After 7 days gone and forgotten.

ANSS @ 160 represents additions and corrections to the catalogue and is probably not finished yet. I would consider February data as not ready for use until the end of March at the very earliest. (Bear in mind there will not be much below 4.5 in this)

EMSC @ 140 represents only 7 days as with USGS but interesting that within those 7 days they have a much better count.

JMO @ 183 just illustrates how many of these smaller quakes we never get to hear about. This data is based on about a 7 day (7 x 24hr periods) window. I scape the data off the web page

After say 3 months has passed I believe that for Mag 4.5 earthquakes upwards this makes ANSS the most accurate data catalogue that is available to us.




edit on 11/3/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

I'm not sure why you get a different result for EMSC than I do
I used this search page www.emsc-csem.org...

The differing results show how futile it is comparing recent results with those of several months ago or years past when the question arises " are quakes on the rise at * ?" (* fill in location)

You might be in a better position with your database if you are downloading the data each day or even every 7 days then you could compare what happened last week with say the preliminary data of 2011 or 2010 or however far back you started downloading.
Got to compare preliminary with preliminary
No use comparing preliminary with finalized (updated/added to/deleted/upgraded/downgraded etc) the results will be skewed (probably in the favour of the historic data)

I went through this with the NZ data and was shocked at the difference (approx average add 100% more events)

I think the big difference between each Networks results is the 4.9 -5.0 quakes, which could go either way and alter the results if we just go 5.0-5.99
Using say 4.5 to 5.5 might get a more even result, possibly with less conflict between 4.4/4.5/4.6 and 5.4/5.5/5.6 than there is with 4.9/5.0 because there are likely less of them (just a guess I haven't had a look)

Doing that, for NZ for example, in the search I did, would probably push the numbers up significntly
edit on 11-3-2012 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Magnitude mb 5.0
Region ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS.
Date time 2012-03-11 19:02:58.0 UTC
Location 51.65 N ; 173.28 W
Depth 60 km
Distances 3487 km NE Sapporo (pop 1,883,027 ; local time 04:02:58.6 2012-03-12)
1805 km SW Anchorage (pop 276,263 ; local time 11:02:58.6 2012-03-11)
1550 km SE Anadyr (pop 10,332 ; local time 07:02:58.6 2012-03-12)
88 km SE Atka (pop 181 ; local time 10:02:58.6 2012-03-11)



EMSC



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 



I'm not sure why you get a different result for EMSC than I do


Simply because you are doing a search now which will have added more quakes as EMSC do that, but my data stops after 7 days so any added more than 7 days from the event won't appear in my data. Even so EMSC have more than USGS on the same time period (also 7 days)


You might be in a better position with your database if you are downloading the data each day or even every 7 days then you could compare what happened last week with say the preliminary data of 2011 or 2010 or however far back you started downloading.


Yes other than ANSS all my data sets are downloaded every five minutes for a timespan of 7 days. This includes Geonet so the result amongst USGS, EMSC, GeoNet and JMO are comparable as they all use the same parameters.

ANSS I only update 1 month later, but do hold a temporary set so currently my ANSS data has January and a temporary set for Feb which will be replaced at the end of March, at which time I will upload a temporary set fro March.

The dataset I use for my stress calcs is the ANSS set.


edit on 11/3/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


OK I get it now.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
last reply on this one I promise post by muzzy
 

If nothing else, ATS is worth having to upload events that the Networks might drop due to timelapse later.
The Mag 5 up north of the North Island on Sunday morning has gone from the Geonet Rapid - All page
I wanted to see where the various plots were as it has ended up quite a way from the original plot, now down near Rumble 2 smv (sub marine volcano), 74.24km from where it was before near Healy smv.
The page is still available, but I haven't figured out where you get it off Geonet yet.
Thank goodness I posted the event here.
so on the same theme, here is what they should add now IMO

Interval Since Event, Origin Time, Lat, Long, Depth, Magnitude, Status
000 12:05:00, 2012-03-10T18:26:25, -35.52766 178.79663, 226, 5.396 , reviewed
000 00:03:54, 2012-03-10T18:26:16.485Z, -35.13, 179.39, 283, 5.1, automatic
000 00:02:19, 2012-03-10T18:26:16.485Z, -35.13, 179.39, 283, 5.0, automatic
000 00:02:19, 2012-03-10T18:26:16.485Z, -35.13, 179.39, 283, 4.9, automatic

quite a difference


Geonet Rapid? well OK so we knew there was a deep Mag 5 to within a 75km radius location, 2 minutes and 19 seconds after it happened.
Exact size, location and depth were wrong , but heck ........................... not too bad


On another topic, but relevant ............. predicting earthquakes?

FORGET ABOUT IT

If USGS, Geonet, EMSC etc can't even get them right 2-3 minutes AFTER they occur how the heck is it possible to locate them BEFORE?

edit on 11-3-2012 by muzzy because: fix punctuation and add more yabber



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   


Magnitude mb 5.1
Region SOUTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
Date time 2012-03-11 22:30:31.0 UTC
Location 41.06 S ; 16.90 W
Depth 33 km
Distances 3175 km SE Rio de janeiro (pop 6,023,699 ; local time 19:30:31.2 2012-03-11)
3094 km SE Cabo frio (pop 108,239 ; local time 19:30:31.2 2012-03-11)
3087 km SE Arraial do cabo (pop 26,163 ; local time 19:30:31.2 2012-03-11)



EMSC



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Im just afraid cause i live in Hollywood..I hope nothing happens at the san andreas fault line



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 



If USGS, Geonet, EMSC etc can't even get them right 2-3 minutes AFTER they occur how the heck is it possible to locate them BEFORE?


With the current knowledge and technology never a truer word my friend, never a truer word.

California looks as if it will survive another quake prediction (at least the original one) but my issue with such predictions remains the fears that are induced by such irresponsible spouting. Witness the post above this.

Yes, of course, a mag 7+ earthquake WILL occur on the San Andreas someday and geologists have a duty to the public to indicate when, in their professional opinion, sufficient stress has built up in the system that such an earthquake may occur.

My apologies BG, and I am not 'ragging on the guy', but because the event looks like it isn't going to happen the 'warning' on QuakePrediction has now been changed to


5.7 to 6.0 earthquake is guaranteed to hit California between 7am March 9 and 7am March 11. [[[ NOTE; Warning extended all day March 11 and March 12. ]]]. Please see map for highest risk areas.


It is the term "is guaranteed" which I take issue with and not the fact that he is 'predicting' or 'forecasting' if you prefer. The gullible may take this as gospel whereas I am sure that the regulars on the thread are perfectly aware that you cannot guarantee an earthquake at a given time or date. If someone has a reasonable basis - proper calculations being preferable to dreams - on which to say I suspect there MAY be...., or I believe there is a possibility that... etc etc that is very different to ..is guaranteed....

People who live in earthquake prone areas are well advised to be prepared, such as you can be,. for the possibility of a large earthquake but to live ones life in perpetual fear because of the drivel spouted by many sites that are only interested in traffic? No. That is insane. You only get one crack at life. Don't waste it hiding under tables. Get out there and enjoy it.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   

MAP 4.5 2012/03/12 08:26:14 36.857 73.083 66.2 NORTHWESTERN KASHMIR

MAP 5.6 2012/03/12 06:06:46 36.796 73.172 49.3 NORTHWESTERN KASHMIR
source(earthquake.usgs.gov...




top topics



 
159
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join