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.
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.
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
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.
If you think EQ data is is something very important for EQ prediction you are wrong very wrong ..
I tell you one more time, you have your thread to posting 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 also one or two strong from M 6.5 is very similar ..
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.
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)