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: 75
77
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzy


even those M9's we see are just small movements when you consider the size of the Planet, whats 2-24 metres of movement (Japan Tohoku earthquake on March 11, 2011) compared to the 40,075.16 kilometers circumference of the Planet?


Can one actually compare the vertical motion to the horizontal distance around the earth?

The fault dimensions for Japan seem to vary between 300km x 150km and 500km x 200km depending on who you read, and the estimate fault length for Cascadia in a total fault slip is 1000km. Whilst that is still a small proportion of the planet's circumference (2.5%) it is a better comparison than the vertical movement.


Click the image to enlarge

From Kamchatka to the triple junction south of New Zealand, walking the 'joints' is about 18,500km at say 1000km width (none of this is actually possible in a single event) giving a surface area of rupture of 18.5 million square km

I went away and created a very approximate calculator of the relationship between rupture length and width based on New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement (PDF:Wells & Coppersmith 1994) It also seems to match the smaller image above - a calculation by an Australian company so we must be working on the same lines.


Click the image to enlarge

The purple bands are just to make it easier for you to follow a line. This chart shows the lengths from 1 to the circumference of the earth and from 1 to 250 km in width.

Fortunately a 500km long x 200 kn wide rupture does work out to a Mag 9 hopefully validating the calculations. At 1000 km length the width of the rupture is 100 km to produce a Mag 9. Think about this in relation to Cascadia !!!


Based on this calc a complete west side event in the Pacific from Kamchatka to south of NZ would be 65km wide to reach a Mag 10.

Mag 10 is shown in a different colour as it is beyond the realms of human knowledge as to whether that has actually happened before. The first Mag 10 point is 4000km length x 250km wide so just maybe not beyond the bounds of credibility.




posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: PuterMan
a reply to: muzzy


even those M9's we see are just small movements when you consider the size of the Planet, whats 2-24 metres of movement (Japan Tohoku earthquake on March 11, 2011) compared to the 40,075.16 kilometers circumference of the Planet?


Can one actually compare the vertical motion to the horizontal distance around the earth?

The fault dimensions for Japan seem to vary between 300km x 150km and 500km x 200km depending on who you read, and the estimate fault length for Cascadia in a total fault slip is 1000km. Whilst that is still a small proportion of the planet's circumference (2.5%) it is a better comparison than the vertical movement.

Good stuff....! Thank you Mr. Puterman.

2nd.


Click the image to enlarge

From Kamchatka to the triple junction south of New Zealand, walking the 'joints' is about 18,500km at say 1000km width (none of this is actually possible in a single event) giving a surface area of rupture of 18.5 million square km

I went away and created a very approximate calculator of the relationship between rupture length and width based on New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement (PDF:Wells & Coppersmith 1994) It also seems to match the smaller image above - a calculation by an Australian company so we must be working on the same lines.


Click the image to enlarge

The purple bands are just to make it easier for you to follow a line. This chart shows the lengths from 1 to the circumference of the earth and from 1 to 250 km in width.

Fortunately a 500km long x 200 kn wide rupture does work out to a Mag 9 hopefully validating the calculations. At 1000 km length the width of the rupture is 100 km to produce a Mag 9. Think about this in relation to Cascadia !!!


Based on this calc a complete west side event in the Pacific from Kamchatka to south of NZ would be 65km wide to reach a Mag 10.

Mag 10 is shown in a different colour as it is beyond the realms of human knowledge as to whether that has actually happened before. The first Mag 10 point is 4000km length x 250km wide so just maybe not beyond the bounds of credibility.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
4.6
10km WNW of Big Bear Lake, California
2014-07-05 12:00:26 UTC-05:00
6.8 km

4.8
6km ENE of Running Springs, California
2014-07-05 11:59:34 UTC-05:00
8.7 km


2 big badda booms really really close together



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Some activity near Big Bear Lake, California:
earthquake.usgs.gov...
earthquake.usgs.gov...
earthquake.usgs.gov...
earthquake.usgs.gov...


Each refresh of the page adds 1-2 more within 15-20 miles radius.

Been a while since a 4.5+ happened on the southern section of the San Andreas and adjacent faults.

Edit:
First two quakes are now 4.6 and 4.4, 11 and 10 km WNW of Big Bear Lake, California, and at 09:59:34 and 10:00:26 AM respectively.

Also, should say I felt what seemed like one quake that lasted about 30 seconds, and am in the Temecula area, around 60 miles SSW of the epicenter(s).
edit on 7/5/2014 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)


2nd Edit:
It seems to have slowed significantly, as of 10:37 AM PDT.
edit on 7/5/2014 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: abecedarian

Wow, look at that! I posted just before you did and man, look at the aftershocks!



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: berkeleygal
a reply to: abecedarian

Wow, look at that! I posted just before you did and man, look at the aftershocks!

Yep. As of the time of this post, 20 quakes including the two that started it.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: abecedarian

They have taken this one off...

4.8
6km ENE of Running Springs, California
2014-07-05 11:59:34 UTC-05:00
8.7 km



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: berkeleygal
EMSC has 37 felt reports at this time. The quake is being described as 'hard quick drop jolt', 'it started a slow quake then big drop', I just don't get them at all!!!




edit on 7/5/2014 by whatnext21 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/5/2014 by whatnext21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Redlands area and Big Bear/Running Springs area according to USGS has had 66 quakes today. These areas are on either side of the San Andreas. Are we going to see something bigger? Maybe... maybe not.

31+- at this time for Big Bear/ Running Springs and 34+- for Redlands.

LA Times article
Earthquake: 4.6 quake strikes near Big Bear Lake
www.latimes.com...




The quake was originally listed as a 4.8 magnitude but was downgraded. There were no reports of damage. But the quake was felt across a wide area of the Inland Empire as well as parts of L.A. and Orange counties, according to the USGS.

According to the USGS, the epicenter was nine miles from Lake Arrowhead, nine miles from Big Bear City and 14 miles from Highland. Twitter posts indicate that quake was felt in downtown Los Angeles and Silver Lake.

In the last 10 days, there have been no earthquakes magnitude 3.0 and greater centered nearby.

edit on 5-7-2014 by berkeleygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: berkeleygal
a reply to: abecedarian

They have taken this one off...

4.8
6km ENE of Running Springs, California
2014-07-05 11:59:34 UTC-05:00
8.7 km
Actually, it's still there but it was downgraded to 4.6 and the previous 4.6 is now 3.4.
These are the first and second links to quakes in my post a few above.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
for those interested in the old paper graphs,,




posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
People are reporting an earthquake in Lebanon. Has anybody heard anything? Unusual and people reporting they have never felt one before.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: sueloujo
There was indeed one offshore of Lebanon, the USGS & EMSC have it recorded.

From the EMSC:
M 4.0 - LEBANON - SYRIA REGION - 2014-07-05 21:41:36 UTC

From the USGS:
M4.1 - 20km NW of Sidon, Lebanon 2014-07-05 21:41:38 UTC

Edit: USGS says offshore, EMSC says onshore. Hard to be sure which has the location correct, but my guess is the EMSC does.
edit on 7/5/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Big 7 in Mexico this morning:

As per USGS:
M7.1 - 8km NE of Puerto Madero, Mexico 2014-07-07 11:23:58 UTC

As per EMSC:
M 7.0 - CHIAPAS, MEXICO - 2014-07-07 11:23:59 UTC

The DYFI section on the USGS had, thus far, a maximum of 8 for the felt rating.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Mammoth Lakes wants to get in on the swarm trend...

117 quakes today. At this time its almost one per minute



Its now up to 142
edit on 7-7-2014 by berkeleygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Updated quake today


Magnitude 6.0 - South Sandwich Islands Region (153)


Location in Google Maps
  • Date-Time: Sunday, June 29, 2014 @ 14:32:49 UTC
  • Earthquake location: 55.387°S, 28.137°W,
  • Earthquake depth: 10.0 km
  • Distances:
    157km (97mi) NNW of Visokoi Island,
    2529km (1571mi) ESE of Ushuaia, Argentina
    2713km (1685mi) ESE of Puerto Deseado, Argentina
    2716km (1687mi) ESE of Rio Gallegos, Argentina
    1995km (1239mi) ESE of Stanley, Falkland Islands
  • Event ID: usc000rnjw

Derived from Event Data Source: USGS
Powered by QVSData



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
katla's prelude ore melting glacier..?
en.vedur.is...



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: PuterMan

And to Muzzy and other regular Quake Jockey's extraordinaire et al

Perhaps you've noticed this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

About an evidently now acknowledged increase in quakes . . . particularly 7 and above???



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Could one of you Quake Guru's please comment on The recent 6.9 in Mexico ?

I can't find any aftershocks.
Thank you in advance .



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join