Quake Watch 2012

Originally posted by StealthyKat
I heard that that quake today in Ohio was only about 2 miles from a fracking site....surprise surprise

Here's an article from CNN www.cnn.com...

On Friday -- one day before the latest, stronger quake -- Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director James Zehringer announced that work would be halted on a fluid-injection well in Youngstown

edit on 12/31/2011 by StealthyKat because: (no reason given)

Yep...and somewhere else here on ATS the frakking has been ordered to stop! Sorry Stealth...but just seen in new year and I'm starting to wilt....but I intend to hang in here with Reinier rumbling!
Rainbows
Oh, and keep an eye out for them this year!
Jane

reply to post by angelchemuel


I'm still waiting for the New Year here...it's only 7pm.....but I have to work New Years Eve is usually a very busy night for us with drunk drivers and all unfortunately..... I hadn't heard about Ranier...hope things stay quiet! Has there been any after shocks in Ohio? I just got home and haven't seen anything yet.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I pulled the data from 8am UTC anyway when I got the waveform so i have had a look/listen to that. The early part seems to have some background noise from the Sun but I can't get anything off the HAARP site to confirm that, but the KP index is low.

Nothing harmonic shows and whistling it through at high speed produces nothing but a very large number of p-pops and cracks.

@westcoast

if they weren't showing up on all three stations, I would say it is something else

Why should it not show on all three stations if for example it was a magma push cracking the chamber roof? They form a triangle no more than 5 km on each side. One is 3.5 km. No reason why that would not show on all of them.

Mount Rainier, at 4392 m the highest peak in the Cascade Range, forms a dramatic backdrop to the Puget Sound region. Large Holocene mudflows from collapse of this massive, heavily glaciated andesitic volcano have reached as far as the Puget Sound lowlands. The present summit was constructed within a large crater breached to the northeast formed by collapse of the volcano during a major explosive eruption about 5600 years that produced the widespread Osceola Mudflow. Rainier has produced eruptions throughout the Holocene, including about a dozen during the past 2600 years; the largest of these occurred about 2200 years ago. The present-day summit cone is capped by two overlapping craters. Extensive hydrothermal alteration of the upper portion of the volcano has contributed to its structural weakness; an active thermal system has caused periodic melting on flank glaciers and produced an elaborate system of steam caves in the summit icecap. Reported 19th-century eruptions have not left identifiable deposits, but a phreatic eruption may have taken place as recently as 1894.

Source: Smithsonian on Google Earth.


ETA: I note that there is little or nothing visible on the next layer of seismos out which would indicate that this is happening on the peak if it is ice or under the peak if seismic/magmatic.

I have started a new thread in Fragile Earth about this latest activity at Ranier, seeing as if it intensifies, it could affect a lot of people:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Puterman- I've learned so much from you this year I feel I should be paying you tuition! I've spent the last hour exploring links on your page and for the first time learned (from you) how to right click to open a new tab. I don't look forward to devastating quakes this year but I do look forward to attending your seminars! Thanks again and Happy New Year

Originally posted by megabogie
Puterman- I've learned so much from you this year I feel I should be paying you tuition! I've spent the last hour exploring links on your page and for the first time learned (from you) how to right click to open a new tab. I don't look forward to devastating quakes this year but I do look forward to attending your seminars! Thanks again and Happy New Year

I really could not have put it better myself sir/madam.....star for you.
Puters....I would happily swap you some massage or reflexology (don't think you would like some of the more 'esoteric 'stuff' i do) for the wealth of knowledge you pass on here. You are a gem sir!

Rainbows
Jane

First official quake in NZ 2012[color=00FF00] UTC

Ref, Lat, Long UTC, Mag, Depth, Location, Felt, TTNT energy
3635799, -38.7739, 175.75523, 2012/1/1 1:13:21, 3.031, 131, os 5515A Western Bay Rd
Waihaha, Lake Taupo 3381, No, 0.53

magma.geonet.org.nz...

* fully constrained* and location to 5 decimal points

earthquake just hit Japan
USGS info
This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 7.0
Date-Time

Sunday, January 01, 2012 at 05:27:54 UTC
Sunday, January 01, 2012 at 02:27:54 PM at epicenter

Location 31.416°N, 138.155°E
Depth 348.5 km (216.6 miles)
Region IZU ISLANDS, JAPAN REGION
Distances 242 km (150 miles) SW of Hachijo-jima, Izu Islands, Japan
365 km (226 miles) S of Hamamatsu, Honshu, Japan
393 km (244 miles) S of Shizuoka, Honshu, Japan
495 km (307 miles) SSW of TOKYO, Japan
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 14.3 km (8.9 miles); depth +/- 9.7 km (6.0 miles)
Parameters NST=618, Nph=618, Dmin=244.9 km, Rmss=0.67 sec, Gp= 25°,
M-type="moment" magnitude from initial P wave (tsuboi method) (Mi/Mwp), Version=9
Source

Magnitude: NOAA West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, Palmer, Alaska, USA
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

EDIT, USGS downgraded it to 6.8
Magnitude 6.8
Date-Time

Sunday, January 01, 2012 at 05:27:54 UTC
Sunday, January 01, 2012 at 02:27:54 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 31.416°N, 138.155°E
Depth 348.5 km (216.6 miles)
Region IZU ISLANDS, JAPAN REGION
Distances 242 km (150 miles) SW of Hachijo-jima, Izu Islands, Japan
365 km (226 miles) S of Hamamatsu, Honshu, Japan
393 km (244 miles) S of Shizuoka, Honshu, Japan
495 km (307 miles) SSW of TOKYO, Japan
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 14.3 km (8.9 miles); depth +/- 9.7 km (6.0 miles)
Parameters NST=618, Nph=618, Dmin=244.9 km, Rmss=0.67 sec, Gp= 25°,
M-type=centroid moment magnitude (Mw), Version=9
Source

Magnitude: NOAA West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, Palmer, Alaska, USA
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID usc0007fbh

phase data is in, and it is all over the place. Saw it in GEE and didn't look anything like a 7.0.

neic.usgs.gov...

More 6.2 ish to me, if that. Won't be surprised to see that drop soon.

This one was deep. Think it might be a mover and or shaker for the faults around it?

Happy New Year all

reply to post by TrueAmerican


And down it comes already to a 6.8:

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Nothing like replying to myself. I like that.

reply to post by elpistolero1


it is too bad the OP didnt wait till the turn of the new year day to make this QW 2012 thread, for if he had then he could have included the 7.0 earthquake which just now hit japan in the first post of the thread,.

would have been fitting, it is ominous after all, for such a rattled already sinking country of island to be hit by another strong one right at the turn of the fateful year.....2012.

reply to post by PuterMan


Maybe I should have expanded on my comment ("if it weren't showing up on all three stations....") What I meant was, that if it were only on one station, than I would be inclined to think it was just a very local event, like ice or a rock or an elk. That it shows on all three tells me it is something bigger than that. Your suggestion of magma pushing up is chilling (no pun intended).

I know we have a good conversation going on at the other thread, but wanted to address your post here!

That the PNSN is saying (through speculation) that this is glacier noise....why? Hmmmm.....makes ya wonder! 2012 is starting out quite interesting already! I hope the 6.8 (in Japan) is nothing telling. Kinda an odd spot for it and with that depth.

RSOE earthquake box is lit up like a Christmas Tree!

Not just Japan

God Bless us.

RSOE

reply to post by megabogie

I don't look forward to devastating quakes this year but I do look forward to attending your seminars! Thanks again and Happy New Year

Thank you and Happy New Year to you and yours. You know really I don't deserve the accolade. I am far from the only one on the thread. There is muzzy and TA and others, including Robin Blair/Eric Marks with his way out theories all of whom do sterling work and make massive contributions to the thread, as do all of you in your own way.

reply to post by angelchemuel

I would happily swap you some massage or reflexology (don't think you would like some of the more 'esoteric 'stuff' i do) for the wealth of knowledge you pass on here. You are a gem sir!

I consider massage and reflexology pretty esoteric!
Thanks for the offer but really not my cuppa at all!

As I said to megabogie, I am not the only one. You all do your part even if it is bringing snippets from the Ext... Ex.... Extin....sorry i really cant say it, but you know the site I mean

Enough off topic nonsense! Back to business.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

it is too bad the OP didnt wait till the turn of the new year day to make this QW 2012 thread, for if he had then he could have included the 7.0 earthquake which just now hit japan in the first post of the thread,.

would have been fitting, it is ominous after all, for such a rattled already sinking country of island to be hit by another strong one right at the turn of the fateful year.....2012.

I don't feel too bad about it. The reason I don't is because Quake Watch for me at least is not about individual events per se. You can guarantee someone will start a thread for a big quake, and sometimes for smaller ones. QW, for me anyway, is about the technical aspects of earthquakes and trying to get an understanding of how and why they occur. Even perhaps working our way round to some sort of predictive capability.

I do understand what you are saying, that it might have been good to come in with a big quake, but January often has big quakes it seems if the last couple of years is anything to go by.

This particular quake was not such a biggie for Japan really. It was deep and by the way seismically in a different area to Tohoku, and probably not felt by many as it only registered MMI III which would have had little or no effect.

2012 is not a fateful year. I really do wish people would stop depressing themselves with doom and gloom and tales of Extinction (Protocol) (there I said it) and face the unpalatable truth that 2012 will be just like any other year as far as Gaia is concerned.

There will be volcanoes, but there are always volcanoes. Katla may erupt and my house may get covered in a thin layer of ash, but then again it may not. There will be earthquakes. There are always earthquakes and in my humble opinion there will not be as many as this past year, or if as many they will not be quite as devastating.

Last year pumped out over 3024 Petajoules of energy. This next bit may be difficult to get your head round but hang on.

Tokohu was 2818 PJ so the remaining 206 PJ of energy throughout the whole world amounted to the equivalent of approximately a mag 8.35 earthquake! Sort of puts the big one in March into perspective really. The total output of 2011 was about the equivalent of a mag 9.12 even though Tohoku was a 9.1 (Logarithmic scales!)

2002, 2003, 2006, 2008 and 2009 all had similar energy outputs to the remaining balance and I am thinking that 2012 will be of that order - probably no more than 400 Petajoules. There is a small chance of an 8-8.5 however and if that is the case it will be around 700-800 PJ for the year - about the same as 2007.

Of course the economic and martial outlook may be depressing, but I tend to ignore those if I can.

One final thing

Governments are building shelters. Why? Nuclear war? No. Asteroid strike? Probably. Dark body, unseen picked up by space based telescopes. Could be unseen until just before it strikes.

That concludes my doom and gloom and disaster for 2012. Back to the quakes!!!

Clean slate for 2012 and already a 6.8! Not wanting anything too bad this year, but we've got to have a little excitement, don't we! Happy New years all! x

reply to post by hapablab


Don't forget that RSOE displays earthquake data from more than one source now, and often duplicates big ones if the magnitude changes as well.

Their list contains several duplicates EMSC/USGS. (I have the same on my system. You get used to it)

Here you are. A gift for 2012. The PuterMan "Not So Handy, Big And Bulky Earthquake Energy / Magnitude Calculator". Yours to keep completely free of charge* when you subscribe to Quake Watch 2012.



*Even if you decide not to continue the subscription after the initial one year free trial period the calculator is yours to keep without any obligation.

For real bargains in earthquakes and stunning reductions please visit a USGS store near you.

reply to post by aboutface
Poorly constrained:

I don't really know to give a definition but some other people(scientists) can and do.I think that it has to do with:
-Depth
-magnitude
-timing and not location,

-teleseismic depth phases
-arrival times
-relocation procedure

TextFUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS AND DEFINITIONS The data always used for earthquake locations are a set of m arrival times measured from one or more phases recorded by a network of seismometers. I will denote this vector of measured arrival times as (t) ~ R ~. It is related to reality as follows (t) = t + rl + ~ (1) where t -- true travel-time vector; r = origin time (1 E R m denotes a vector of all ones); and = measurement error. With actual data, t is unknowable. Instead, we must always rely on a mathematical model of t calculated from some estimate of the earth's seismic velocity structure. I use tmodol(&) to symbolize this vector of travel times, tmoael is a function of the estimated spatial coordinates of the hypocenter, &. A complete specification of the hypocenter, of course, also requires an estimate of r, ~, as well. For convenience, this 4-vector will be symbolized as/~. With these definitions, I define the residual function r(]~) ---- (t) --tmodel(;~) --T1. (2) Using equation (1), equation (2) becomes (3) APPRAISING EARTHQUAKE HYPOCENTER LOCATION ERRORS 1701 where emodel(X) = t --t~odel(X) and Ar = r -~.

source(scholar.google.ro...://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.127.1365%26rep%3Drep

TextAll computerized earthquake location methods minimize II r(/~)II, where I[ II denotes a vector norm. The details of how this proceeds vary greatly, but all methods are the same in one respect. All are iterative procedures that calculate a series of corrections, 5hh, to estimate h as /~ = ho + ~' 5hh (4) k=l where niter is the total number of corrections required to obtain a stable solution from an initial guess, ho, of the hypocenter. By stable I mean specifically that the sequence 5hk is convergent such that II II < (5) where e is some appropriately small number. The 5hk are always calculated as 5hk = A~-~P(/~k-1) (6) with ftk-1 = ho + F,~---~ 5hl. A'~-I E R 4xm is a generalized inverse. With the exception of the nonlinear method described by Thurber (1985), A~_~ is always calculated directly from the matrix of partial derivatives z[ with components 0 X,j = (tmo e,). (j = 1, 2, 3), and A,4 = l(h4 = r). (7) There are essentially as many variations in how Ah* is calculated as there are location programs. Fortunately, we do not have to present a different error analysis for every possibility that exists. The reason is that every existing location method can be equated to a weighted least-squares problem. For our purposes, this means specifically that there exists a positive definite matrix, W E R m×m for which the solution to the usual equations of condition

source(scholar.google.ro...://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.127.1365%26rep%3Drep

Textthe corre- 1702 GARY L. PAVLIS spondence is obvious. With procedures using damped least squares (e.g., Herrmann, 1979) or the recently published application of Newton's method by Thurber (1985), the correspondence is not so obvious. However, equation (9) still holds because the purpose of both algorithms is to promote convergence of the sequence defined in equation (4). Both seek a solution that minimizes I] r II = []'TW2]'] 1/2. As long as the location is well constrained, both methods will converge to the same solution as an equivalent least-squares procedure. Furthermore, even a procedure which seeks to minimize L1 ( I] ? ]01 = ~ ?=1 ] r~ I ) can be cast in this form (Anderson, 1982). We are also forced, on the other hand, to make three fundamental assumptions. 1. h is well constrained. That is, we assume A + is not singular. 2. ]~ is the global minimum of 0] r ]1, not a local minima. 3. ]~ is not enormously different from the true hypocenter, h. The consequences of nos. 2 and 3 are identical, but the way they can arise is different. What I mean by "enormously different" is stated specifically below. ANALYSIS OF HYPOCENTRAL ERRORS Second-order theory. /t inevitably contains errors that arise from a number of factors. To examine this, expand each component of the residual vector in a Taylor series as follows (Lee and Stewart, 1981, p. 124) 4 ~i(/~ + 5h) = ~,(h) + • A,jShj + fii (11) J=l where Av is as defined in equation (7), and ni is the sum of all second and higher order terms of the expansion. The m equations of (11) can be summarized in matrix form as f(h + 5h) = ?(/~) + ASh + fi (12) where the correspondence of different terms is obvious. source(scholar.google.ro...://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.127.1365%26rep%3Drep

edit on 1-1-2012 by diamondsmith because: do

reply to post by aboutface

TextAPPRAISING EARTHQUAKE HYPOCENTER LOCATION ERRORS 1703 A conventional analysis would assume n ~ 0, yielding classical results involving error ellipsoids (Flinn, 1965). One of the main points of this paper, however, is to consider the importance of n. To do so, we need a method for calculating it. Application of equation (5.68) of Lee and Stewart (1981) to equation (11) yields 5~ = ½5h TH~Sh + ... (16) where H, is the Hessian matrix. Analytic forms for Hi for a constant velocity medium and a two-layer model are given in a recent paper by Thurber (1985). I use Thurber's results below to approximate 5i to second order as ~ ~ lShTHiSh = (n2),. (17) Equation (15) then becomes ~h ~ A+(emodel + n2 -b e). (18) There are two levels of approximation in equation (18): (1) the convergence criterion e, and (2) the second-order approximation of n. (The latter is emphasized with the 2 subscript on n.) Equation (18) is the focal point of this paper. The first step is clearly to investigate the limits of this approximation. This is done in the following section using computer simulations. Computer simulations. In this study, I chose to consider the location precision of earthquakes in the vicinity of the rupture zone of the 1984 Morgan Hill, California, earthquake (Cockerham and Eaton, 1984). A crude approximation to the velocity structure in this area was used to generate travel times for a series of synthetic events. This velocity model consisted of two constant velocity quarter-spaces joined along a vertical plane striking north 31.5 ° west and passing through the point 37°16 ' north latitude by 121o40 , west longitude (Figure 1). Synthetic arrival times for every station in the U.S. Geological Survey Central California Network (CALNET) and all University of California Berkeley stations within 100 km of this point (121 stations) were calculated from this model for the set of events shown in Figure 1 using two different quarter-space models. Velocities for these two models are given in Table 1. The measurement error vector $ in equation (1) was simulated by using a random number generator to produce random samples from a normal distribution with zero mean and a variance of 0.05 sec. The same ~ was then added to each synthetic event arrival time vector. The advantage of this is that it allows comparison of errors induced by $ as a function of position. On the other hand, it gives a privileged position to a set of random numbers. However, repetition of these results with different random vectors indicates the results are not very dependent on the exact choice of ~, and the one presented here is representative. All events were located using a simple, damped least-squares procedure similar to that described by Herrmann (1979), using travel times calculated from a constant velocity medium with a velocity of 5.6 km/sec. Figures 2 and 3 show the resulting location estimates. All location estimates show an eastward bias caused by approx- imating the quarter-space model with a constant velocity medium. The scale of this bias is ~10 km for model A events and ~2 km for model B events. Figure 4 can be used to examine the validity of the second-order approximation in the context of these two different error scales. This is summarized here by examining only the

source(scholar.google.ro...://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.127.1365%26rep%3Drep

TextEstimated locations of synthetic events from model A using 5.6 km/sec constant velocity medium. For comparison, the map view (A) and cross-section (B) frames are identical to those shown in Figure 1. Estimated locations are at the centers of crossing lines which are the projections of the major axes of the conventional 95 per cent confidence ellipsoids. Critical values for these ellipsoids are based on an F statistic as originally advocated by Flinn (1966). where v0 is the constant velocity medium velocity. Vo is used to convert origin time errors into an equivalent length scale so all components of a are at least measured in the same units.

source(scholar.google.ro...://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.127.1365%26rep%3Drep