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 2014

page: 24
77
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Olivine
 


And 280 days since the last mag 8+ which is statistically a long gap as well. (ETA: M8+ average over 13 years = 1.46 per year and M7 over 13 years = 15.84)

Mag 7 quakes for the past year, i.e. 52 weeks back from 28th Feb, are 13 so have fallen below the yearly average. Mag 6 annualised value is 104 which is also way below average. (ANSS say 2049 M6 in 13 years - 157.5 per year on average)


Click the image to enlarge

My thanks to you for pointing out what a dunce I am who should not be let near a spreadsheet.

For those of you who do not look at the weekly geophysical reports (why don't you????? eh? come on, be honest!) I had extended the period of counts for mag 8+ to 104 weeks (~2 years) but kept the average energy per quake working on 52 weeks. It transpired there was also a slight error in the method of calculating the average energy of mag 7 and mag 6 quakes as well so double dunce Mr Puterman.

My thanks to you for pointing out the error of my spreadsheet ways!!



edit on 1/3/2014 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Dianec
 


I agree that we normally post M6 and no they are not commonplace. but fo r that area it was a bit of a tiddler (M6+ in last 20 years)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
2.9
20km ENE of West Yellowstone, Montana

2014-03-01 19:44:39 UTC+01:00

1.1 km



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
further to post by muzzy
 


This animated GIF shows how hard it is to predict earthquakes based on "young" data.


Preliminary data, which is based on the SeisComp3 automated system, that Geonet got off Geofon, only goes so far.....
On review by the Geonet scientists many events are downgraded in magnitude, some go up, some are even false readings and deleted, and then there are others added which SeisComp didn't pick up, such as the South of Kermadecs and Kermadec Islands areas.
This all effects the TTNT energy release figures for each 24hr period.
Adding to the muddle, I have it from a reputable source at Geonet that the reviewing of individual events depends on who is on duty at any given time, their own individual area of particular interest and even their mood at the time.
Not very scientific is it!

So Preliminary data may show some trends over a period of weeks/month, but it can't be relied on, Reviewed data is better, but not by much.
Reviewed data after 12 months might be more accurate, but what use is that if you are watching Energy Release of a daily/monthly basis??
February Preliminary Graph
February Reviewed Graph
In the graphs above only one 5+ quake in Feb occurred on the NZ landmass, the rest are offshore.

I was surprised that on Review so many extra 5+ quakes appeared, I count 10!
But on Preliminary data there were only 5 !!??!!
I have 4 of them on my M5+ page, so need to go and update that now.

Muzzys Rule??
(If the TTNT daily figure drops below 10, then there will be a M5+ within the next 6 days)
It happens enough historically to be reasonably reliable.
But that is based on Preliminary data.
If you look at the TTNT side of the Preliminary Graph you can see this drop occurred 6 times in Feb.
Putting the M6 aside (drop was in Jan), the #9 count on the 3rd was not followed by a 5+ , but by 3 x M4's on the 7th. So the energy wasn't all released. The next drop was #6 on the 11th which was followed right away with a M5+ on the 12th, 13th, 16th and 17th.
So Muzzys Rule didn't really work for Feb, based on Preliminary data.

But what about Reviewed data?
The #9 count on the 3rd was replaced by #1,118 because of a M5.2 South Of Kermadec Islands, so we can dismiss that drop below 10.
There are other 2 days less than 10 in the reviewed data, the 11th (#4) and the 23rd (8).
Were these followed by a M5+???
Yep, a M5. on the 12th and then 2 more over the next days, then the drop to #8 on the 23rd?, yep a 5.36 Kermadec Islands on the 28th, within the 6 day period.

So it still works for Reviewed data it seems.
But whats the use? if you have to wait 3-6 days to get the Reviewed data in, by then the odds are the M5+ has already hit!

edit on 03000000595914 by muzzy because: ah so that ois what those red wiggly lines are in the editing window, spelling mistakes!




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Deep 6.2 6.3 coast of Nicaragua

www.emsc-csem.org...


Magnitude M 6.2 6.3
Region NEAR COAST OF NICARAGUA
Date time 2014-03-02 09:37:56.0 UTC
Location 12.52 N ; 87.60 W
Depth 80 km
Distances 153 km W of Managua, Nicaragua / pop: 973,087 / local time: 03:37:56.0 2014-03-02
52 km W of Chinandega, Nicaragua / pop: 126,387 / local time: 03:37:56.0 2014-03-02
30 km SW of Jiquilillo, Nicaragua / pop: 4,142 / local time: 03:37:56.0 2014-03-02




Location in Google Maps

USGS have Mag 6.4 More details

CFZ have Mag 6.3 Manually revised.
edit on 2/3/2014 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/3/2014 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 



So it still works for Reviewed data it seems.
But whats the use? if you have to wait 3-6 days to get the Reviewed data in, by then the odds are the M5+ has already hit!


But it still gives you a warm muzzy fuzzy feeling that you were right!


Maybe these ones that are added could be identified quicker on a seismo? Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
M 6.7 - 93km NW of Nago, Japan
2014-03-02 20:11:22 UTC



Event Time

2014-03-02 20:11:22 UTC
2014-03-03 04:11:22 UTC+08:00 at epicenter
2014-03-02 12:11:22 UTC-08:00 system time
Location

27.283°N 127.439°E depth=127.4km (79.2mi)

Nearby Cities

93km (58mi) NW of Nago, Japan
102km (63mi) NNW of Ishikawa, Japan
110km (68mi) NNW of Okinawa, Japan
111km (69mi) NNW of Gushikawa, Japan
1141km (709mi) S of Seoul, South Korea


earthquake.usgs.gov...

edit on 7/30/2012 by dreamfox1 because: 6

edit on 7/30/2012 by dreamfox1 because: 7



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Japan 6.6


Magnitude M 6.6
Region RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN
Date time 2014-03-02 20:11:22.5 UTC
Location 27.36 N ; 127.34 E
Depth 107 km
Distances 634 km NE of Taipei, Taiwan / pop: 7,871,900 / local time: 04:11:22.5 2014-03-03
132 km N of Naha-shi, Japan / pop: 300,795 / local time: 05:11:22.5 2014-03-03
106 km NW of Nago / pop: 59,587 / local time: 05:11:00.0 2014-03-03


@dreamfox1 SNAP!


edit on 2/3/2014 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 



Just luck i was on at the moment



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
M 6.6 - 106km NNW of Nago, Japan

DYFI? - IVTsunami Warning Center
Time2014-03-02 14:11:23 UTC-06:00Location27.400°N 127.400°EDepth118.0km

Not Fast Enough

edit on 2-3-2014 by SeekingDepth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   
no one mentioned this one, was a M6.0 on Geofon when I first seen it.


2014-03-02 22:17:16, 5.9Mw, 14.49°N, 92.92°W, 10, Near Coast of Chiapas, Mexico
geofon.gfz-potsdam.de...


made me take another look at Mexico, which I hadn't done since Oct 2013.
Did some downloads off Servicio Sismológico Nacional (SSN) and just realized SSN is in local time (CST)
Damn I'll have to go back and do 2 years of maps, I have tagged events with UTC when in fact the times showing are CST
from Nov 2013 and 2014 have both local and UTC times now

here is an interactive map of Mexico for March as of today centred on that 5.9Mw (showing 5.7ML on SSN)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
It looks to me that whole plate is moving, and making more pressure on other area's .

When I see this I get nervous. Because I don't think we really understand how plates react to others. We don't know all the weak spots.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much we don't know about the planet we live on.
edit on 4-3-2014 by crappiekat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by crappiekat
 





The more I learn, the more I realize how much we don't know about the planet we live on.


Very true. Even gets worse when you realize that Plate Tectonics is an unproven theory. It is just a theory, nothing more. Many people question it but at the end of the day, it is the flavor of the month, supported by the big wigs. Unfortunately, this stifles the investigation of other models that could hold the key to a real understanding of EQs and Volcanic eruptions.

It is all just a pet theory!

P



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 

Yes, I understand what your saying.

I'm so pissed right now. I just wrote a nice post about this, and I lost it. Off to work. Will get back later.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
We getting some movement today in California.


www.data.scec.org...

2.1
24km NNE of Searles Valley, California
2014-03-04 14:59:59 UTC-08:006.7 km
1.7
23km NNE of Searles Valley, California
2014-03-04 14:57:24 UTC-08:008.5 km
3.4
23km N of Searles Valley, California
2014-03-04 14:51:01 UTC-08:0012.6 km
3.8
23km NNE of Searles Valley, California
2014-03-04 14:49:32 UTC-08:006.5 km
2.2
24km NNE of Searles Valley, California
2014-03-04 14:46:29 UTC-08:007.5 km
3.3
23km NNE of Searles Valley, California
2014-03-04 14:42:55 UTC-08:006.7 km


USGS trying their BS in hiding the quakes by removing the info www.data.scec.org...



files.abovetopsecret.com...


Someone at USGS dosent know that there is more places to see the info lol'




files.abovetopsecret.com...





files.abovetopsecret.com...

www.data.scec.org...

A minor earthquake occurred at 2:51:03 PM (PST) on Tuesday, March 4, 2014.
The magnitude 3.0 event occurred 23 km (14 miles) NNE (16 degrees) of Trona, CA.
The hypocentral depth is 7 km ( 4 miles).



Magnitude 3.0 - local magnitude (Ml)
Time Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 2:51:03 PM (PST)
Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 22:51:03 (UTC)
Distance from Trona, CA - 23 km (14 miles) NNE (16 degrees)
Telescope Peak, CA - 30 km (19 miles) SW (220 degrees)
Ridgecrest, CA - 50 km (31 miles) NE (41 degrees)
Coso Junction, CA - 59 km (37 miles) E (99 degrees)
Coordinates 35 deg. 57.8 min. N (35.963N), 117 deg. 18.0 min. W (117.300W)
Depth 6.8 km (4.2 miles)
Quality Good
Location Quality Parameters Nst= 27, Nph= 42, Dmin=8.2 km, Rmss=0.14 sec, Erho=0.3 km, Erzz=1.1 km, Gp=90 degrees
Event ID# ci15472225
Additional Information map || waveforms

On the right pannel it shows the info then its removed again.??????




files.abovetopsecret.com...







files.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 7/30/2012 by dreamfox1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I have a question for the experts, but first. During my research on gases over the past year, observations of current events has taken me to plate tectonics, now that you mention it (in above post). I believe that the plates are shifting about, not the rubbing together that causes quakes, but the actual plates themselves moving together but tearing and ripping apart within which is why we are seeing so many strange events.

What is transpiring? Pipeline explosions, train derailments, hydroelectric dam cracks, underground storage collapses, land cracks, sinkholes, landslides, land deformation (like Yellowstone), water main breaks, building implosions, bridge collapses, loud thunderous booms, trumpet sounding vibration noises, hums, rivers disappearing, re-emerging islands, small tremors and dormant volcanoes awakening. Earth crust shifting could be causation for these phenomenon, including the roaming plumes of methane and hydrogen sulfide gases that are causing explosions, fires, poisonings and even death because when the land fractures below, these gases are most likely escaping into the atmosphere.

My question in regards to quakes is this...It was just mentioned the other day that it has been a very long time since there were any quakes above 7.0 and an even longer drought for the big ones, 8 and above, but at the same time, there seems to be quite an increase in small tremors and swarms of quakes under 4.5, and small quakes appearing in places that seem unusual. Does it make sense that maybe because of the tearing and ripping of the plates themselves from say something like crust displacement, there may be less pressure on the plate boundaries, thus, a lack of major earthquakes?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
So far the quakes in that area.

www.data.scec.org...


2.2 2014/03/04 15:08:17 35.965N 117.296W 5.7 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
1.4 2014/03/04 15:05:20 35.962N 117.301W 10.6 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
2.1 2014/03/04 14:59:59 35.968N 117.299W 6.7 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
1.7 2014/03/04 14:57:24 35.964N 117.298W 8.5 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
3.0 2014/03/04 14:51:03 35.963N 117.300W 6.8 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
2.3 2014/03/04 14:51:00 35.966N 117.301W 8.5 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
3.8 2014/03/04 14:49:32 35.961N 117.298W 6.6 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
2.2 2014/03/04 14:46:29 35.962N 117.297W 8.0 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
3.3 2014/03/04 14:42:55 35.962N 117.300W 7.1 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
0.9 2014/03/04 11:08:27 35.927N 117.174W 0.0 25 km (16 mi) NE of Trona, CA
1.7 2014/03/04 09:28:47 35.963N 117.292W 6.9 23 km (14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
1.6 2014/03/04 06:33:10 36.885N 117.396W 12.0 17 km (11 mi) SSW of Scottys Castle, CA
1.3 2014/03/04 00:19:13 35.096N 117.469W 1.3 20 km (12 mi) ENE of Boron, CA
1.7 2014/03/03 22:48:35 35.942N 116.639W 0.0 33 km (21 mi) W of Shoshone, CA
1.1 2014/03/03 20:57:55 35.975N 117.332W 8.0 23 km (15 mi) N of Trona, CA



www.emsc-csem.org...

and

www.data.scec.org...



files.abovetopsecret.com...



files.abovetopsecret.com...


And the there's this interesting swarm at The Geysers CA

www.data.scec.org...




edit on 7/30/2012 by dreamfox1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
USGS restores info




files.abovetopsecret.com...

Someone over there must of hid the info thinking it must be some sort of error.

No its not a glitch or error thats real info.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


For anything to move you need an energy input.

There are three inputs that I can think of that may affect EQs. These are :

1 The Earths rotational energy

2 The Earths magnetic energy (Which is presumed to be caused by the rotational energy)

3 The Sun. (Full spectrum output)

Solar output is at a minimum and this takes away some of the energy. As such, to my mind, the lessening of quakes is to be expected. Having said that and to forestall problems, we should consider that it takes time for the lessening of energy to affect a system and when energy is lessened there are sometimes contractions and corrections within the system.

P



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
These recent quakes in the searles valley sit on the Garlock fault. This fault is capable of producing a 7.6!

Listed below, is a link that explains the recent and not so recent history in that area.


www.data.scec.org...



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join