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.

 

EQ M 6.6 Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Interesting earthquake ..

2013-06-24 22:04:16.012min ago 10.90 N 42.40 W 20 6.6 NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE

Magnitude Mi 6.6
Region NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
Date time 2013-06-24 22:04:16.0 UTC
Location 10.90 N ; 42.40 W
Depth 20 km
Distances 1278 km NE of Cayenne, French Guiana / pop: 61,550 / local time: 19:04:16.0 2013-06-24
1511 km NE of Paramaribo, Suriname / pop: 223,757 / local time: 19:04:16.0 2013-06-24
1790 km E of Georgetown, Guyana / pop: 235,017 / local time: 18:04:16.0 2013-06-24

www.emsc-csem.org...


edit on 24-6-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)



edit on 6/24/13 by GENERAL EYES because: amended all caps title




posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Why is it interesting?




posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


It means good surfin' somewhere



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Like I remember for this area in last 10 years there was only one stronger from M 6.5 ..




posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by EA006
 





AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS

ORIGIN TIME - 2204Z 24 JUN 2013
COORDINATES - 10.9 NORTH 42.4 WEST
LOCATION - NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
MAGNITUDE - 6.6

EVALUATION

A DESTRUCTIVE WIDESPREAD TSUNAMI THREAT DOES NOT EXIST BASED ON
HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI DATA.

HOWEVER - THERE IS THE SMALL POSSIBILITY OF A LOCAL OR REGIONAL
TSUNAMI THAT COULD AFFECT COASTS LOCATED USUALLY NO MORE THAN A
FEW HUNDRED KILOMETERS FROM THE EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER. AUTHORITIES
IN THE REGION NEAR THE EPICENTER SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THIS
POSSIBILITY.

THIS WILL BE THE ONLY PRODUCT ISSUED BY THE PACIFIC TSUNAMI
WARNING CENTER FOR THIS EVENT UNLESS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
BECOMES AVAILABLE.


ptwc.weather.gov...



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 


I guess it depends what you call 'this area'. 300km radius gives


1979-08-25T08:44:04.000Z, 10.73100, -41.68800, 6.6000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 80.0
1996-06-02T02:52:09.550Z, 10.79700, -42.25400, 7.0000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 19.6
2004-03-08T23:39:11.340Z, 10.48000, -43.91900, 6.0000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 172.4
2008-02-08T09:38:14.100Z, 10.67100, -41.89900, 6.9000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 60.4
2011-07-27T23:00:30.320Z, 10.80100, -43.39300, 6.0000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 109.0


Source ANSS data. Circular search radius calculations QVSData.

1996 is inside 10 years and is almost in the same place. (The figure at the end is the distance from the current event) None of these are too far away. and two are much larger - in excess of 4 x the strength.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by MariaLida
 


I guess it depends what you call 'this area'. 300km radius gives


1979-08-25T08:44:04.000Z, 10.73100, -41.68800, 6.6000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 80.0
1996-06-02T02:52:09.550Z, 10.79700, -42.25400, 7.0000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 19.6
2004-03-08T23:39:11.340Z, 10.48000, -43.91900, 6.0000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 172.4
2008-02-08T09:38:14.100Z, 10.67100, -41.89900, 6.9000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 60.4
2011-07-27T23:00:30.320Z, 10.80100, -43.39300, 6.0000, Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 109.0


Source ANSS data. Circular search radius calculations QVSData.

1996 is inside 10 years and is almost in the same place. (The figure at the end is the distance from the current event) None of these are too far away. and two are much larger - in excess of 4 x the strength.







You are funny man again, your last EQ was M 5.9 but I say stronger from M 6.5 ..

2011-07-27 23:00:31.0 10.76 N 43.51 W 10 5.9 NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE

www.emsc-csem.org...

Also one more your posted data 2004-03-08 EQ was M 6.0 ..


Anyway that is not important for me or for what I was trying to say, also EQ prediction ..

If you think EQ data is something very important for EQ prediction you are wrong very wrong ..

I tell you one more time, you have your thread to posting some non-stop EQ data what is very boring to me ..

I'm here to posting something very different from some numbers etc, so do not me distract me again with your boring numbers or your bad intentions ..
edit on 24-6-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
large for the mid atlantic ridge , which usually doesn't exceed 5.5



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by drphilxr
 


I was thinking the same thing?? It's been a while!



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I think there are going to be more quakes along that area. I don't know why I have that feeling, there is no real evidence....it's just not very deep.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 


Anyway 1996 is not inside 10 years ..

You posting again some empty words so please don't use me time again with some nonsense ..

In last 17 years there was only one EQ stronger from M 6.5, EQ was in 2008 ..

2008-02-08 09:38:14.6 10.71 N 41.90 W 10 6.9 NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE

www.emsc-csem.org...

earthquaketrack.com...




edit on 24-6-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 



If you think EQ data is is something very important for EQ prediction you are wrong very wrong ..


I never said that? Where did that come from?


I tell you one more time, you have your thread to posting non-stop EQ data what is very boring to me ..


My thread? Strange I thought it belonged to ATS. (And I don't host QW anyway)


I'm here to posting something very different from some numbers etc, so do not me distract me again with your boring numbers also one or two strong from M 6.5 is very similar ..


So tell me then, if you are posting something very different why are you just posting 'boring numbers', as in the Quake Watch thread, in this thread? As regards strength there is a considerable difference between 6.5 and 7. Since I see nothing in this thread other than numbers what exactly is it that I am distracting you from?

You have stated the earthquake is interesting but have failed to reply to Boncho who asked you why?

I was merely aiding your memory as you said you thought there was one, and I told you there were two greater than 6.5. I really don't see that that deserves the tone of your reply, however I will pass it by as I am thinking that English is not your native language and I am maybe misinterpreting your tone.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 


You are correct. I made an error. Time does fly!

Anyway i thought you weren't into numbers?
edit on 24/6/2013 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by MariaLida
 



If you think EQ data is is something very important for EQ prediction you are wrong very wrong ..


I never said that? Where did that come from?


I tell you one more time, you have your thread to posting non-stop EQ data what is very boring to me ..


My thread? Strange I thought it belonged to ATS. (And I don't host QW anyway)


I'm here to posting something very different from some numbers etc, so do not me distract me again with your boring numbers also one or two strong from M 6.5 is very similar ..


So tell me then, if you are posting something very different why are you just posting 'boring numbers', as in the Quake Watch thread, in this thread? As regards strength there is a considerable difference between 6.5 and 7. Since I see nothing in this thread other than numbers what exactly is it that I am distracting you from?

You have stated the earthquake is interesting but have failed to reply to Boncho who asked you why?

I was merely aiding your memory as you said you thought there was one, and I told you there were two greater than 6.5. I really don't see that that deserves the tone of your reply, however I will pass it by as I am thinking that English is not your native language and I am maybe misinterpreting your tone.


Wrong wrong and again wrong ..

There was only one stronger from M 6.5 in last 17 years ..




posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 


Whether I was wrong or not, and I happily admit that I was, you still have not answered the questions.

What is interesting and why are you just posting data from which I am apparently distracting you?
edit on 24/6/2013 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by MariaLida
 


Whether I was wrong or not, and I happily admit that I was, you still have not answered the questions.

What is interesting and why are you just posting data from which I am apparently distracting you?
edit on 24/6/2013 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


OMG ..

My world is not like yours also not only some numbers ..

I trying to feel what coming also posting that so member can help me in that like "rickymouse" doing all time ..

It's most difficult to predict accurate any EQ ..

Puter-Man I tell you many times ..

Please leave me along to predict some EQ's on my threads I already leave your threads because similar things for me that's empty talks about EQ, and yes my English is very very bad and all know about that

I working tomorrow and I lose one more night because of you, here is 02:09 lo0l ..

Don't be so boring man any more PLEASE ..




posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Some more info ..

Area where EQ hit, images taken from Google Earth ..





whc.unesco.org...








new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join