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: 68
77
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: PuterMan
Nothing like another set of eyes to spot the mistakes! thanks.
Yes you are quite right, I made a mistake by adding the number of rows in the column, including the days of phase points, rather then the number of events, that gave an extra 48 lines, there were 139 as you say.
That changes the 2013 results, as does taking out the phase points in the Perigee-Apogee and Apogee-Perigee periods,
new numbers are
On point = 14/139 or 10.1%
Perigee-Apogee= 26/139 or 18.7%
Apogee-Perigee =61/139 or 43.9%

was previously
On point = 14/175 or 8%
Perigee-Apogee= 51/175 or 29.1%
Apogee-Perigee =86/175 or 49.1%

a reply to: PuterMan
I wondered if the I had the right calculation for the "on phase point %", maybe it should have been "count number on points /total number of phase points per year" rather "than count number on points/total number of events"
That would give for 2013 14/25 or 56% (versus 10.1%)
and for not quite half year 2014 7/13 or 53.8% (versus 9.6%)
I don't suppose it matters, as long as one says what the % is of.

edit on 06u16516514 by muzzy because: edited 4 times




posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

F_E Region: South Africa
Time: 2014-06-15 14:16:28.1 UTC
Magnitude: 5.2
Epicenter: 26.55°E 26.87°S
Depth: 10 km
Status: A - automatic

geofon.gfz-potsdam.de...

usgs have 4.9mb± 0.104@5km reviewed
edit on 0600000016516514 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

can't find anything from SA News, but found this
9/56 YEAR CYCLE
and this
Simplified Geology and Selected Mineral Deposits map
haven't got time to compare quake location with mines right now ............ thats the suspicion
edit on 0600000016516514 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Moderate quake offshore the Iwaki, Japan coast:

M 5.7 - 91km ESE of Iwaki, Japan

Time
2014-06-15 18:19:15 UTC
Location
36.643°N 141.781°E
Depth
22.8km



USGS mag 5.7
geofon mag 5.6


ETA: Another one--same area, but closer to land, and twice as deep (makes sense, if they are on the subduction fault)
USGS Mag 5.6
geofon Mag 5.7
edit on 6/15/2014 by Olivine because: add info concerning a 2nd quake near Iwaki



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzy

Easy done!

I cobbled together this chart which shows the relationship of perigee and new moons - the two most geoeffective 'pulls'


Click the image to enlarge

The filled in blue spikes are perigee at the top and apogee at the bottom. The unfilled spikes which are black at the top and white at the bottom are black for new moon and white for full moon. Perigee and a new moon gives the greatest pull.

In Jan 2013 this was about the case and again in December - but it was very quiet then. The problem is that in order for this to be valid you would also need to know the aphelion and perihelion of the earth which of course we do and these are roughly the beginning of July and January respectively. This would therefore suggest that Earth's perihelion is off set by the lunar apogee as it is almost exactly opposed to the pull, in other words the Earth is a bit closer to the Sun but the Moon is a bit further from Earth.

Quite how it does not all fly off in different directions is beyond me. My brain hurts thinking about all this!!



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzy

I have yet to make my mind up whether David McMinn simply bends the data to fit the theory. He is well into the 55/56 year cycle and applies it to finance as well as earthquakes. He features often in various alternative geological publications. I sort of believe him as to the 55 year cycle, but the problem I have with this is, and other data, is that the data from anything earlier than 1920 or so is 'iffy' at best and his table is not easily understood unless I am being plain thick. Indeed he even states himself that it is a bit "iffy".


Problems arose in regard to the listing's suitability for appraisal and the result may be spurious.


Now to me, if that is that case, you do not present the data instead of carrying on regardless!



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzy

usgs have it under Vaal Reef Gold Mine
geofon have it between the town of Alabama and what looks like a Uranium mine

sure is a lot of mining going on in SA



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: PuterMan

I've never really looked into the 9/56 year cycle.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Just happened. Oklahoma, or there abouts. A significant earthquake just showed up on webicorders. I don't know how big because not all the trace has completed. It's bigger than 4. -The rest of the trace came through. It's got to be around 4.5M . Just about an hour ago, there was another around 3.5M.

The usgs puts it at 4.2M? Whatevs...

There have also been a couple more in the 3 range that have followed the 4.whatever. They've really started this Monday off with a big fracking bang. Or, bangs.
edit on 16-6-2014 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ericblair4891
Just happened. Oklahoma, or there abouts. A significant earthquake just showed up on webicorders. I don't know how big because not all the trace has completed. It's bigger than 4. -The rest of the trace came through. It's got to be around 4.5M . Just about an hour ago, there was another around 3.5M.


You sure it wasn't this 5.2 in Guatemala?

If my net connection wasn't to iffy right now (off & on with the DSL, line trouble somewhere) I'd have GEE going to watch the area in the event that it wasn't Guatemala's.
edit on 6/16/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)


Edit: Nope, you're right, bud, 4.5 in Oklahoma according to the EMSC. Hot dang, that's not good

edit on 6/16/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/16/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
M 6.1 - 31km ENE of Noatak, Alaska

The Preliminary quake was listed as 5.5

Time
2014-06-16 07:01:11 UTC-05:00
Location
67.704°N 161.999°W
Depth
15.6km

OK Edit

M 5.7 - 31km ENE of Noatak, Alaska

Time
2014-06-16 07:01:11 UTC-05:00
Location
67.702°N 162.000°W
Depth
16.0km

*******

M 5.8 - 42km ENE of Noatak, Alaska

Time
2014-06-16 07:00:33 UTC-05:00
Location
67.684°N 162.000°W
Depth
15.7km

So instead of one big one there are two big ones
edit on 16-6-2014 by berkeleygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: berkeleygal

I think there's only one Alaskan earthquake. The AVO map doesn't have a webicorder that far north. But the Redout shows one clearly. Also, the USGS only shows one at the moment.
I also just checked others and it looks like one.
edit on 16-6-2014 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)


Also, to update Oklahoma, there's been about 5 earthquakes this morning. I am expecting a big earthquake in Alaska. This would be normal because Alaska is known for big earthquakes. I am also expecting a big earthquake in Oklahoma. This will not be normal, nor natural.

Oh, and one volcano is back. Etna. Check out Volcano Watch.


edit on 16-6-2014 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)


Also, in general, it doesn't seem so quiet anymore.

I love watching other trying to wrap their minds around the lunar cycle. Because, you can't simplify the problem to focus on one thing. Because yes, we have the earth's orbit around the sun as well. And I believe, you have to include our tilt on our axis into the mix. Plus, the makeup of the crust in relation to the amount of water in the system. You have drought and floods which will change this value. Etc, etc, etc...

I love the graphs guys.

Had to add. I just finished writing the quiet seems over when I saw another squiggle. It was on Momotombo and I thought the Alaskan one had shown up on the webicorder. But it looked to big. Yup, it wasn't Alaska, it was Columbia. 5.5

Did I say Columbia? No, that's the stupid USGS put it at. When you look at a map, well, it's out in the ocean, closer to Nicarauga, Costa Rica, and Panama. Ugh. - At least the EMSC put it north of Panama.

I'm so sorry that I am obsessed with the quiet cliche'. I looked again, and it's still kinds quiet.

The following is the Top 111 overused movie lines. Skip to minute 2:04 of the video for the "too quiet" line.
www.youtube.com...


edit on 16-6-2014 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ericblair4891

Yep, there's only one. The 5.7, followed by two 3.1's and a 3.8.

6 total for today, so far

3.8
35km ENE of Noatak, Alaska
2014-06-16 07:56:50 UTC-05:00
13.3 km

3.1
31km E of Noatak, Alaska
2014-06-16 07:28:57 UTC-05:00
5.4 km

3.1
25km NE of Noatak, Alaska
2014-06-16 07:23:07 UTC-05:00
21.3 km

5.7
31km ENE of Noatak, Alaska
2014-06-16 07:01:08 UTC-05:00
24.2 km

4.2
29km ENE of Noatak, Alaska
2014-06-16 07:00:30 UTC-05:00
15.4 km

3.1
41km E of Noatak, Alaska
2014-06-16 06:38:41 UTC-05:00
17.0 km



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Meteorologist reacts, when Oklahoma earthquake hits during forecast!

www.wtae.com... v%2Bpittsburgh

WOQ



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ericblair4891

I agree with you that Okie is going to have a 6+

I am uneasy as my daughter is attending a gymnastics camp at the U, and are staying with family in Edmond...right smack dab in the middle of the action



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
All morning I've been wanting to avoid writing this post. I've been trying to ignore Alaska, but my bones won't let me. (Oh that reminds me, I have a story on the swarm in the north of Alaska. Mysterious!!!) For several weeks, I have been refamiliarizing with the Alaskan webicorders so I know what's "normal". At times, I've been bored stiff. But not today. There may be something brewing. Alaska is even outpacing Oklahoma to regain it's position as #1 earthquake state in Americer. Wow. There's been about a dozen. And, that EMSC didn't carry many of them. 2.5+. Puterman, and Muzzy, do you guys have your own lists that manage to gathering all the reporting in one real list. I know you've discussed this issue, but I can't remember where the idea went. I just wish for one spot to look if I'm rushed. I always find myself cross-referencing. I do that anyway, but only when I want to watch an area closer. When I'm trying to browse list to get a feel for the activity in general, and when I'm trying to key on a region that's starting to wind up, I can't because none of the services have a full list. I don't care if it's too long, and has every little burp, I just want to follow it fully. And, it ain't happening now due to gaps in those lists. I'll stop, and let you guys get back to harping about them, and I'll just watch my little area of the globe. Oh, Ubanis is back with a new webcam. And, in general, volcanic activity seems to be at a mild increase. But not really, because others have ebbed for now. I'll try to look at Puterman's graphs on volcano watch.

Before I mess up and erase what I just wrote, here's the webicorder from Redoubt.



Here's the article about the Alaskan swarm.

www.adn.com.../99/188/

I've mentioned before that the original activity began with coupled earthquakes. Hmmm. I'm not even sure why I am so interested in "double taps". This swarm doesn't not have a main shocks. So, no preshocks or aftershocks. Just shocks. The activity first happened in April, and April was when we had a very significant clustering of large quakes. I think no coincidence. (how do I spell, hmph? - my kid has been doing that noise, whatever it is or means.)( i'm old, old old bones... but they're wise, foolish bones.) Sorry, the weather is hot, I am reluctant to get into the garden, and I think I'm not thinking right...)_
edit on 17-6-2014 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2014 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
M4.1 - 9km N of Spencer, Oklahoma 2014-06-18 10:53:02 UTC
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Is it just me, or are the 4's in Oklahoma becoming much more frequent recently? At any rate, I don't think Oklahoma's finished putting it's 2 cents' worth in yet.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

It's not just you. Oklahoma is a conundrum.
t's as if the past century of oil drilling, coupled with high-pressure waste-injection wells, and possibly drought, have conspired to rearrange the bedrock. I fear another moderately strong quake is on the horizon for our Sooner friends.

I'd love to see the state experiment with a month long moritorium on injection well activity, just to see if things quiet down.


*************************

I think we just had a small earthquake north of me. I felt suddenly dizzy, so I went looking and found this:


TA.P57A..BHZ near Martinsburg, WV

************************

Oklahoma just had another mag 3+, looking at the Tulsa seismo, in GEE....




posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah


Is it just me, or are the 4's in Oklahoma becoming much more frequent recently?

Oklahoma quake information (maps and lists) can be read here at CERI
This page has Analytical tools which are quite good, you can get cross-section, mag-time, depth-time and cumulative# graphs with a few clicks of your mouse, although personally I don't like the style of the graphs (with the plot tails) myself.
here is how you work it;
move the map around to where you want it, zoom in if necessary,
select Analyze
then follow the instructions

here I have the area selected Largest:4.3, Smallest: 0.4, Latest: 2014/6/18, Earliest: 2013/12/19 (*that is all that is available here)
(click image for larger version, opens in new tab/window)

Plot Type below is Mag-Time
(click image for larger version, opens in new tab/window)
I've cropped the height a bit, as the graph doesn't show below M2.5 anyway
If you a have a play with it you may have to redo the proceedure several times as the map resets itself occasionally without any manual input.
edit on 06u16816814 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

here is another one, M4>
(click image for larger version, opens in new tab/window)

edit on 06u16816814 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Okie-Dokie Okies .................


I'm sure I've done this before, but probably due for an update
You can also get this information from the OGS with basic maps and lists, but not the whole 96 years and 10,698 earthquakes at once or on one graph, this is where the Leonard Geophysical Observatory comes in handy, Catalog is here
(click image for larger version, opens in new tab/window)

How much does improved technology in recording earthquakes play in the data? looks to me is probably a bit behind everywhere else in the World, here there is no uptick after 1945, it takes until the 1960's to see the smaller quakes showing up. This isn't to say they were not happening, just they weren't recorded.
Biggest quake remains the 5.6Mw of 06/11/2011 in Lincoln County, closely followed by the 5.5Mw of 11/04/1952 in Canadian County.
End of 1975 seen the start of a steady rate of quakes (2-3 a month, but scattered locations) through 1979 (up to 31 in one day on 18/03/1979, in Canadian County), not sure if this is the advent of "fracking" or not, seems a bit early, perhaps others can elaborate on this?
1979 to end 1999 steady at 1-2 a day with the odd day with 7 (eg Grady County on 16/04/1999)

relatively quiet 1999 through to 2009 (2-11 per month, scattered locations), *(interesting that all data for 2009 is USGS, not OGS (was this the Period of Denial?))
then it really took off in 2010, to the frenzy it is today (17-22 per day in the last 3 days)

I've split that graph back to those periods mentioned above, below;
If anyone want's to see closer/other timelines or split into Counties, just ask and I'll do the graph and or map.
1975-79
(click image for larger version, opens in new tab/window)
1980-1999
(click image for larger version, opens in new tab/window)
2000-2009
(click image for larger version, opens in new tab/window)
2010-2014
(click image for larger version, opens in new tab/window)

I'll do an interactive map, but, 10,698 is a LOT of icons, will probably have to limit the text inside the popups to get it to work.

edit:
correction, 10,605, I took out the lines that had 0 magnitude.
File was 7.5MB while loading to Google Earth, saved the file off GE and it was only 389KB

A lot of the early ones are on top of each other, (only 1 decimal point in the lat/long)
(click image for interactive map, opens in new tab/window)

edit on 0600000016916914 by muzzy because: add interactive map



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

With all the fracking up here north of you probably just the start of the shaking. It never made the local news or USGS though.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join