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.

 

9.5 QUAKE hits Siberia!?! WTH? Did I miss Something? 6.7 Upgraded to 9.5!

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
This has to be an error. If it was a magnitude of 9.5 half the world would be dead.




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HallamFoe
This has to be an error. If it was a magnitude of 9.5 half the world would be dead.

That is such a HUGE overstatement! Especially considering the area it hit was Siberia, a vastly unpopulated area isnt it? Half the world, thats funny



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HallamFoe
This has to be an error. If it was a magnitude of 9.5 half the world would be dead.


a) it is an error based on different scales of measurement. It's a 9.5 on one scale, and a 6.5 on another.
b) a 9.5 in the middle of a desert isn't going to kill much of anything, except the occasional unlucky carribou. A few trees would get knocked down. A few cracks would open in the earth, but with nearly no-one around, it's unlikely that many, if any, would be affected.
c) With a depth of 10km, it would travel a couple hundred miles, weakening at a rate of roughly (M/d)c where M=Magnetude, d=distance, and c=a varying conductive constant. after about 200 miles it might shake chimneys or ring bells, but not a lot more.

So yes, it was a big quake, but no, half the world is safe.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


Your statement of the two different scales is not accurate. That means that the ORIGINAL quake COULD not have been a 6.7. That number would have to change also. How do you explain that?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Unvarnished
 


only if the tectonics allowed for it. a 9.5 quake would be strong, but not necessarily felt, depending on location and population density.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by HallamFoe
 

There may have been a bit of exaggeration and sarcasm in my post.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
www.allvoices.com...

This says its read from a different scale.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


I was going to respond to this, but it seems that Georgethegreek beat me to the punch.

Required second line.

That being said, I'm not an expert. I'm just a crackpot theorist who happens to enjoy tossing out the odd earthquake predictions, which are generally greater than 50% accurate (but not much, so don't believe anything I say on the subject). I was a lot better before I took an arrow to the knee.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by HallamFoe
 


Then I apologize for correcting you. I'm a bit slow on the sarcasm front.
Required second line.
Additional, spurious line meant only to point out the irony of the previous spurious second line.
This line is unintentional. Just a typo, and you can ignore it.
This line too.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GEORGETHEGREEK
 


thanks for the clarification.RT should have stated on the MSK scale.People were thinking Richter.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas

Originally posted by volafox
WTF?? how does one get a 9.5 out of a 6.6? I'll believe it when I see the other geological sites upgrade. Until then, its a case of making a mountain out of a molehill... a good sized one, but still, a molehill.


A 6.6 MG equals to 120 kilotons of TNT. That in 10 km depth is not really a molehill.
edit on 27-12-2011 by Hellas because: (no reason given)


might collapse a few



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
USGS still has it at 6.6
USGS

...And your link to Rt is not no longer valid. Misprint
edit on 28-12-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given)


AH... here we go:
MSK - Richter


no and several non-mainstream sites are interpreting 9.5 MSK as 9.5 on the Richter scale and forgetting to put the MSK at the end, which is afterall, equivalent to 6.5 and nothing to sneeze at in itself!

edit on 28-12-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


I am curious as to the source of your statement that things have been getting busy in Alaska and the Aleutians? When I read that I thought to myself that this was not the impression that I have from the area in light of a study of mag 6.5+ I have just completed for Alaska so I did a bit of checking against the USGS data for the past year for the lower magnitudes.

Magnitude 1-3.9 cumulative count of earthquakes for events with Alaska in the name shows no change in trend over the last year.


Magnitude 4-6 cumulative count of earthquakes for events with Alaska in the name shows no change in trend over the last year.


Magnitude 1-3.9 cumulative energy of earthquakes for events with Alaska in the name shows no change in trend over the last year, thus the quakes are not getting larger within the range.


Magnitude 4-6 cumulative energy of earthquakes for events with Alaska in the name shows no change in trend over the last year. This is a bit 'lumpier' as we are talking much higher energy values but no increased trend is apparent.


Looking at the Aleutian element as well, i.e. those events with Aleutian in the name, we see this.

Magnitude 1-3.9 cumulative count of earthquakes for events with Aleutian in the name shows a marked change in trend over the last year - downwards! (No increase at the end of the graph is a downward trend effectively as it means the numbers have stopped.)


Magnitude 4-6 cumulative count of earthquakes for events with Aleutian in the name shows just the one spike and then nothing.


Magnitude 1-3.9 cumulative energy of earthquakes for events with Aleutian in the name shows the same as the cumulative counts, thus the quakes are not getting larger within the range.


Magnitude 4-6 cumulative energy of earthquakes for events with Aleutian in the name shows just the one spike and then nothing.


Also in the Aleutians, but not included above are events with Fox in the name which often is just 'Fox Islands'

Magnitude 1-3.9 cumulative count of earthquakes for events with Fox in the name shows a bunch of quakes in June and September but a tail off to normal, indeed possibly lower than normal, levels currently


Magnitude 4-7.2 cumulative count of earthquakes for events with Fox in the name shows the same as above with nothing in recent weeks. (I have used 7.2 here to cover the quake of that size). This all shows normal mainshock/aftershock patterns.


Magnitude 1-3.9 cumulative energy of earthquakes for events with Fox in the name repeats the pattern of the counts, thus the quakes are not getting larger within the range.


Magnitude 4-6 cumulative energy of earthquakes for events with Fox in the name basically comprises two quakes which are the two spikes you can see on the chart.



Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-09-02 10:55:54, 52.185, -171.684, 6.8, 35.5, Fox Isls.
2011-06-24 03:09:40, 52.007, -171.859, 7.2, 62.6, Fox Isls.



I think that about covers the area. As I said, I don't see any increase there at all.

Finally the study I was looking at was the incidence of stress release over the period 1900 to 2011 and again it is evident that there has been no significant upward trend. Whilst I appreciate that looking at only 6.5 upwards it might be difficult to see a trend as they are few and far between, generally the stress levels in Alaska (and this study includes the Aleutians) are steady. Certainly stress levels may be in the region where a mag 8 to 8.3 could occur, but in my opinion it will be a matter of decades before there is another mag 9+ in Alaska.




edit on 28/12/2011 by PuterMan because: 'shock' numbskull as in 'shock and awe' not 'shocj'



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


Nice find there, especially with the bit saying that sites are failing to report correctly.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by herrw
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


I was going to respond to this, but it seems that Georgethegreek beat me to the punch.

Required second line.

That being said, I'm not an expert. I'm just a crackpot theorist who happens to enjoy tossing out the odd earthquake predictions, which are generally greater than 50% accurate (but not much, so don't believe anything I say on the subject). I was a lot better before I took an arrow to the knee.


I was a lot better before I took an arrow to the knee.


You, sir.

I like you.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I did a little googling.
news.google.com...:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dbJSIM4TZ9-SXmMKEAVlvHoenK2 TM&hl=en&ei=ukf7TsedF8WDtgfLi6nQBg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQqgIwAA


there's a few 9.5 results.
www.kyivpost.com...
abc.az...

6.6 from the station in yakutsk russia.
rev.seis.sc.edu...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I am new here. Please excuse me if I am duplicating a post that validates our concerns.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


I appreciate RT's clarification. You sparked my High School memory and we had discussed the Richter Scale vs MSK. I only learned *one* thing in Economics; There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Is this where I say, "I'm a reasonable, neurotic woman who researches Planet X. My 10-year old daughter's name is Heaven. I do not judge one's convictions. I am a survivalist. For 10-years I have managed 10-Project Managers in the Fiber world, and I am completely intrigued by ATS because it feeds the researcher in me"?

Regards



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllUrChips
So I was just goin through RT website, and came across this, I knew there was a quake recently, but a 9.5?!
Is it a misprint, or did I miss something HUGE?!!!!!?

TextMagnitude of Siberian quake raised to 9.5 The magnitude of the quake that struck south-eastern Siberia late on Tuesday has been raised to 9.5, according to Russia’s emergencies minister Sergey Shoigu. The quake is the strongest ever to be detected in the region he said. There have been no reports of damage or casualties since the tremor - initially reported as 6.7 on the Richter scale - struck a sparsely populated area in the Republic of Tyva near the Russian-Mongolian border. However Shoigu expressed doubts that there has been no damage at all and has ordered the authorities to stay on the alert for any aftershocks that may follow.

Does anybody have any further info on this?
Looks like this was an upgrade of a reported 6.7. How is this much an increase possible? Also I heard the russians are testing ICBM missles. They apparently landed in the pacific region, but maybe somethings going on in siberia as well as far as nukes?rt.com...
edit on 27-12-2011 by AllUrChips because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2011 by AllUrChips because: (no reason given)


The USGS lists the earthquake as 6.6 with a depth of 9.3 km. The USGS magnitude is a moment magnitude scale based on the total energy released. The original Richter scale mesaures the displacement of the siesmograph.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join