Quake Watch 2017

Quite a swam here



It started with a 4.3


earthquake.usgs.gov...

So far there have been 58 events in the Soda Springs area with the largest being a 5.3

earthquake.usgs.gov...

a reply to: crappiekat

Makes me wonder if it's volcanic in nature or.....

Also, pretty close to Yellowstone?

a reply to: MamaJ

Hi Mama.

You could be right.

en.wikipedia.org...

25 events today. The largest being a 3.9

earthquake.usgs.gov...

a reply to: crappiekat

Was hoping TA would chime in on this swarm. This one is a bit close to home for me.

a reply to: mzinga

He's over here.
www.youtube.com...

Come join us and you can see them coming in live.

As Jaded brought to my attention.

We really shouldn't be calling this a swarm. These are aftershocks.

That's a good thing. It is releasing pressure.

a reply to: mzinga

As kat says below, TA has been holding forth in the chat room for his live feed most evenings when he gets home from work (around 5ish central) and has discussed this activity as well as other areas of interest.

Current stream can be found here:



I was calling it a swarm too, until Dally D pointed out the definable main shock with the standard aftershock sequence. Heck, there are even a couple (or at least one) of foreshocks that were noted there prior to the 5.3.

The quakes are showing up in many of the Yellowstone stations and so the seismic energy is indeed rattling the magma chambers beneath. But these events are not going to do anything to appreciably increase the melt ratio (of somewhere between 5%-15% of 4000k^3 of magma) in the chambers.

As has been noted in TA's live stream chat and other places, both Long Valley and Campi Flegri have a greater possibility of eruption based on known factors than does Yellowstone. Yellowstone is just the drama queen of supervolcanoes and has a much bigger fan club.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks so much for the update. There are a few fantastic resources people trust at ATS and the earthquake resources here are fantastic!'

Here is a screen shot of all the aftershocks at Soda Springs.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'll never forget the "main shock" off the coast of Japan. What followed it was an even bigger main shock. How does one know for certain the 5.3 is the main shock?

a reply to: MamaJ

There is usually a progression.

A build up --> main shock --> smaller aftershock EQs.

Once the smaller after shocks have started you can tell which is the biggy. It is the piggy in the middle.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Remember Japan though? They had a good size quake (7.2) 2 days prior to the main shock (9.0). Did they know there was a bigger one coming? How does one know for sure is my curiosity. I'd love to know the science, if there is such.

Despite the massive foreshocks, there was no way to predict that Japan's biggest-recorded earthquake was looming, said Paul Caruso, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Golden, Colo. "We have big quakes there all the time," Caruso told OurAmazingPlanet. For all scientists knew at the time, the 6.3-magnitude quake that struck yesterday was the main shock, Caruso said. "Not every big earthquake has a foreshock but they all have aftershocks." [

www.livescience.com...

If you guys get a chance, stop by. Pretty cool to see them come in live. Before they are listed.

www.youtube.com...

Today we had a geologist Dr. David M. Pearson stop by and answer questions.

We had some great questions and got good answers.

a reply to: MamaJ

Remember Japan though? They had a good size quake (7.2) 2 days prior to the main shock (9.0). Did they know there was a bigger one coming? How does one know for sure is my curiosity. I'd love to know the science, if there is such.

You can not know for sure since you cannot predict or measure the stress points.

After the initial 7.2, there were not the normal series of aftershocks and therefore ... there could be a bigger one waiting ... and there was.

After the 9, there were many powerful aftershocks in the 6 - 7 region. These normally indicate the main quake has happened.

The problem you have is that one fault may slip and thus cause other nearby areas to feel stressed and they can also let go.

Think of hanging from a ledge by your fingernails. The little slides and slips, your frantic moves to hang on ... these are the foreshocks. Letting go is the main shock.

Now, you are falling fast and bump into another person who now falls as well ... now you have another EQ.

P

ETA Try reading this to get a better picture. Click me please.

Bear Lake Faults. East and West Faults

a reply to: MamaJ

There is a remote possibility for a 7.0 in that region; the mechanism does exist. But in our short conversation with Dr. Pearson, he didn't give us the impression that the likelihood was very high.

Here is the Q&A from the Spectro Watchers Facebook group:

Q- What would be the odds of the Idaho 5.3 earthquake being a preshock event for a larger quake?

A- We don't know exactly what the odds are that there would be a larger quake. However, in California, with similar ~M5 earthquakes, 5-10% of the time, a larger earthquake follows.

Q- How long do the aftershocks from a quake this size last?

A- They usually last for days or weeks but can last longer in some cases.

Q- Does this activity have anything to do with Yellowstone erupting?

A- This doesn't have anything to do with Yellowstone erupting.

Q- With regards to the 5.3 in Idaho, are the aftershock sequences we've been seeing on par with quakes of a similar size with the same type of movement?

A- The number of "aftershocks" can vary substantially, so I don't think these are out of the ordinary.

Q- At what fault did the quake happen?

A- These quakes are located near the northern end of the Bear Lake fault. However, the epicenters are E/NE of it, so they did not occur along that fault. Thus, they probably occurred on a fault that was not previously known to be active.

Q- Any idea if it was blind thrust type quake or other?

A- These are normal faults (result from extension vs. thrust faults, which accommodate shortening). Thus it may be a "blind" normal fault, or an existing fault that's been mapped but wasn't known to be active. Odds are it's the latter, but I don't know for sure.

Q- How far do you think that we are from being able to predict and forecast earthquakes?

A- We're still a long ways to being able to "predict and forecast" EQs on human timescales, but we are pretty good at knowing where the EQs will be on timescales of thousands of years.

The 5.3 even had a 4.3 foreshock, form TA's feed:

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That's what I read yesterday as well. Wish there was a way to predict and know for sure. I'm like the rest seems to me the 4.3 was the foreshock and it being days since the 5.3 probably even less chance as days go by. Is that an accurate statement you think?

a reply to: MamaJ

Mama, do you remember TA's Golden Rule.

It's one of those things that right there and I can't remember.

You mean the difference of 1.0? So if the aftershocks aren't 1.0 or less then the main, look out.