Hello everyone, sorry for getting into the conversation so late -- this is actually my first post ever on ATS -- I have remained a silent
reader/observer for several months now but have never contributed to any of the discussions yet. I love the community here and better yet, I love the
similar lines of thought in other members here that mirror my own lines of thought that I have held for years. I figured now would be as good of a
time to start posting as any. Please bear with me if I make any formatting errors in my posts and help me to correct them.
I have read the thread and the statements made about how these 5.1 quakes in California were supposedly "phantom quakes". Before now, I have never
even heard of such a thing, or even known that an erratum page containing phantom quake data existed on the USGS site. If this is true, I would think
it would be an very rare event. Would that be due to the fact that they theoretically happen only with extremely deep quakes? If this was the case,
would that not mean that the respective seismographs in California actually did pick up at least some sort of seismic activity in California? Can
anyone explain to me how a seismograph can detect seismic activity in an area where no seismic activity has actually occurred, when the said
triggering activity is actually thousands of miles away? One would think that today's seismographs would be advanced enough to distinguish between a
deep and powerful quake (the 7.7 in Sea of Okhotsk and 388 miles in depth) thousands of miles away on another continent on a separate fault zone.
The Monterey Bay, CA quake was initially reported to have been only 3.1 miles in depth, while the other 2 quakes detected in California around the
same time frame were 40 and 41 miles in depth. Why was the depth so much shallower than the 7.7 Russian quake if these were just ghost quakes
triggered by it?
In my opinion, if a seismograph were to report even a so-called phantom quake in the seismograph's *local* area, then it must have felt the seismic
activity in that area -- would that in itself not classify as being a legitimate quake or series of quakes in the California area?
I apologize if I sound like I'm being redundant, just trying to put my thoughts into words here.
Now, here's the reason I felt like I had something to contribute to this conversation...
For about 6 or 7 years now I have subscribed to earthquake notifications through email from the USGS's Earthquake Notification System. I am currently
subscribed to receive an email alert for any 3.0 or larger quake anywhere in the world. I have been interested in earthquakes and anomalies in the
geological activity of the Earth ever since I was about 10 years old. I initially subscribed to the ENS to gain a better understanding of how quake
patterns occur across wide geographical locations and how large quakes and plate movement affect and/or possibly trigger other quake activity on
adjacent or closely stressed tectonic plates.
The patterns I have seen lately coming in through ENS have become very unusual for about the past 18 months or so (just before the March 11, 2011
Japan quake) but I have noticed an even sharper turn in strange patterns throughout the past 2 months now. This pattern is on the rise in areas rarely
affected by seismic activity. Small yet moderate quakes are occurring in areas accustomed to activity, but in greater numbers and in shorter
intervals. More areas that were having 5.x's just months ago are now having 6.x's (China, Iran, coast of Oregon, Southern Alaska and the Aleutians,
just to name a few areas). I used to get probably about 30 or so notifications a day for quakes 3.0 and over worldwide per day and that number is now
typically over 50 per day. I am concerned about this pattern, I am sure others have noticed it as well, there may even be threads here on ATS about
this very topic (I spend most of my time reading on ATS across the entire broad range of topics, not just the quakes, and I often just get buried in
the sheer amount of reading content available on the site).
The USGS's ENS system works in nearly real-time, since it is automated. I will usually get an email alert on any quake before it has been reviewed by
a duty seismologist or even posted to the USGS Recent Earthquakes map or list on earthquake.usgs.gov...
" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> earthquake.usgs.gov...
Sometimes I will get a follow-up alert on recent events once it has been reviewed by a human and properties of the event in question will be updated,
such as depth, epicenter, finalized moment magnitude, precise lat and long, possible location uncertainty measurements, etc.
On Monday evening (August 13) the ENS sent me 3 real-time notifications of three separate detected events in California within one minute -- the first
one at 10:12 PM Central (my time zone) and the other two at 10:13 PM Central. Two of these events were listed as being being in Northern California
and one in Monterey Bay.