Whats going on at yellowstone?

Originally posted by VX-7R
Here's another animated GIF of all of the helicorders for Yellowstone, but this one is from December 30, 2008. That's a day with some actual earthquake activity.

This gives a little perspective, I think. Plus, it's fun to see this one because there's a lot more "real" activity in it.

farm4.static.flickr.com...

For this one, the timing is set to 30 milliseconds per chart page.

Great, thanks for taking the time to these images ... a great educational experience for a lot of people, including me ....

reply to post by Amaxium

Brilliant!! Well put together!

reply to post by Amaxium


Darn, I have been updating the page number in a desktop link. This is much easier!

Originally posted by Amaxium
Just in case anyone is having trouble keeping up with this long thread. There is a way to bookmark a thread exactly where you left off.

Instruction found here

That way you can easily go to where you last were and read on from there.

I can't find the "this post" button, can u provide more info for beginners ...

Originally posted by geogeek

Originally posted by Amaxium
Just in case anyone is having trouble keeping up with this long thread. There is a way to bookmark a thread exactly where you left off.

Instruction found here

That way you can easily go to where you last were and read on from there.

I can't find the "this post" button, can u provide more info for beginners ...

Not a problem.

First click on the "this post" link near the post date and time stamp. (see image for reference) This will update the web address in your browser.



Then add the page to your favorites or bookmark it in you internet browser.

That way when you select your bookmark or favorite, it will take you to that exact post (where you left off). When you are ready to update it. Delete the bookmark or favorite then repeat the process above.

thanks to Mover Mike for noticing this:

Salt Lake City times has article on recent swarm & the geoscientists response to it , so far :

www.sltrib.com...

reply to post by Aphelion


Totally in theme and cool rocks.
A few of the pics looked like Wako Tanks, which is the 'rock park' in my back yard so to speak.

Moshpet

reply to post by Amaxium


If you are using the dreaded Windoze try this. Seems a bit less complicated.

reply to post by geogeek


small correction ...

one component is the particle motion in the Z (up) direction [ mostly "P" , but i reserve the right to back out on anything i say here, and correct it later)
another is particle motion in East direction , the other/Last one particle motion in the North direction ... the North and east are mostly a mixture of SV & SH shear waves , but because the geophone was not aligned with the ray path of earthquake the signals are muddled across both .. a data rotation can restore the SV & SH to individual channels later ... ( that's the too simple story ... it also depends on the emergent angle of the ray path , what I called "P" before is more probably P with a lot of SV mixed in , and because of the emergant raypath for "P" , some P has leaked into the "N" & "E" planes/components also .... so U really need to rotate all 3 vectors together in the same operation to eliminate the mixing of P/SV/SH waves , such that each separated component lies on its own channel .... too easy, forgive me if i bored U .... i think this might be approximately correct

[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

the seismological point of all this is U take the recorded X/Y/Z (E/N/Vertical) components, and U reconstruct the P/SV/SH components, from which you can do analysis of various kinds, all analysis is based & parameterized in terms of P/SV/SH and Time (mostly)




[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

Originally posted by geogeek

Originally posted by VX-7R

You can use the little "hand" cursor and drag the picture up and down to see the areas you want to study.

Cheers!

little "hand" cursor ??? what is this, i don't see it , am i misunderstanding something ?? I'm using firefox ....

OOPS!

In Firefox, I just get the usual scroll bar on the right hand side of the screen. You can use that to move the "view window" up and down to show the upper or lower part of the image.

Initially, in FireFox, the image shows up shrunk down to fit the window on my computer screen. So the degree of scaling is dependent on how large your monitor is (in pixels) and how large you've got the window for FireFox set to be.

Once you use the little magnifying glass icon and click to enlarge the image to its original size, then most likely the full image won't fit into the window any more.

At that point, you can scroll it up and down with the right hand vertical scroll bar to see the part of the graph you want. I suppose if the window was small enough horizontally, you'd also get a bottom edge left-right scroll bar as well.

In the application I was using the other day, you got a "hand" icon for the mouse cursor, and you could grab the graphic and drag it within the window instead of having scroll bars.

So scroll bars is what I should have said. I think that's a more common way of doing this in our browsers.

Well, I just spent the last few hours inside an Excel spreadsheet and thought I would share some results.

I got the data from USGS for all earthquakes since 1973 above 5.0 Magnitude. I wanted to see if there was any noticable trend in the number of larger earthquakes over the years. Anyhoo, from 1973 to about 1994, the average number of eathquakes per year on our planet was around 1600. Then from 1994 to 1997 the number dropped to around 1100. From 1997 forward, the frequency picked up and by 2007, the number of earthquakes above 5.0 hit a whopping 2270! However, the 2008 number dropped significantly away from the upward trend to 1710. Now this is still above average for the 35 year period under examination but when viewed on the chart, well 2008 does not look too impressive...

Now, call me a conspiracy theorist , but the visual of this made me consider the possibility of numbers being withheld for whatever reason in 2008. Especially with all the talk of earthquakes being removed etc.. And since there is no way for me to prove this to be the case, I thought perhaps another metric might provide an interesting trend.

Enter depth! The data that I got also included the depth of the >5.0 mag eartquakes since 1973. So, I calculated the average depth per year and charted that. Well, lo and behold, we have a picture with an obvious trend. The >5.0 mag earthquakes are gradually getting closer to the surface and this has accelerated a bit since 1994. The average depth has gone from around 85 km deep to around 57 km deep in 2008, with most of this creep to the surface coming in the last 14 years.

What does this mean? No clue, other than the data is there to support it.

If I can figure out how to post the two graphs, I will do that in another post.

reply to post by Cedrica


there has been big improvements in instruments in last 15 years ... the move from Analog to Digital recording (24 bit) .....

and improvements if the frequency response of these instruments ( more wide band .. better lower & upper frequency response ) .. i don't understand EE all that well, but i have been told some of the improvements is from the move from Analog to Digital

.. any electrical people want to jump in & correct me .... ????

[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

reply to post by geogeek


and....

What are you saying, that the older equipment was 30 km off in the depth measurements? That quakes above 5 mag are not slowly moving closer to the surface because of equipment? Sorry, that's just not making much sense to me, Can you explain?

reply to post by Cedrica


Get a screenshot of each graph (if possible).
I use ctrl + Prnt Scrn
Paste image into Paint and crop it.

Upload to PhotoBucket.

Then post the links here.

Does anyone know how to use Google Docs for sharing???

Originally posted by Cedrica
reply to post by geogeek

 

and....

What are you saying, that the older equipment was 30 km off in the depth measurements? That quakes above 5 mag are not slowly moving closer to the surface because of equipment? Sorry, that's just not making much sense to me, Can you explain?

the depth is a computation based on first arrival times of P & SV as seen on various seismograms .. if you can now see the arrival times better, it follows that u will get a better depth estimate .. of course one should not overlook the fact that the seismologists probably have much better velocity models now that they used to 30 years ago ... that velocity info combined arrival times determines X/Y/Z ... just my hand waving, take it for what ever it may or may-not be worth ....

Originally posted by geogeek
reply to post by Cedrica

 

there has been big improvements in instruments in last 15 years ... the move from Analog to Digital recording (24 bit) .....

and improvements if the frequency response of these instruments ( more wide band .. better lower & upper frequency response ) .. i don't understand EE all that well, but i have been told some of the improvements is from the move from Analog to Digital

.. any electrical people want to jump in & correct me .... ????

[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

No need to correct you, your absolutley right. Im an EE btw. The digital sensors are far more accurate and incorporate filitering for specific frequencies and bandwidth they look at. The old analog sensors were very wide bandwidth and much more difficult to look at specific frequencies.

As with any digital device that records, the higher the sample rate, the finer the resolution. 24 bit is a good sample rate for the frequencies they are looking at. But as you go higher in sampling rate, you also sample stuff you dont want to pick up. To look at frequencies in the low sub spectrum of 8 cycles or lower, its easy to see that sampling at very high rates, your going to not only get those low frequency readings, but anything else above that as well.

But they are filtered digitally so the readings we see are quite clean.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Cedrica
Well, I just spent the last few hours inside an Excel spreadsheet and thought I would share some results.

Ouch!

Now, call me a conspiracy theorist

,

Conspiracy theorist!

Let's face why else would you be here?

Sounds interesting. Keep up the good work. Look forward to the graphs.

I'll have to post the charts in a few hours when I get home. Work has photobucket blocked, lol. I should be ashamed of myself spending all this time at work on non-work related goodies.

reply to post by RFBurns


your an EE, eh ... I get it now : "RFBurns" (tee hee ... )

[edit on 9-1-2009 by geogeek]

Originally posted by geogeek
reply to post by geogeek

 

small correction ...

the seismological point of all this is U take the recorded X/Y/Z (E/N/Vertical) components, and U reconstruct the P/SV/SH components, from which you can do analysis of various kinds, all analysis is based & parameterized in terms of P/SV/SH and Time (mostly)

Um, yup. I am popping out for a Guiness while that post passes overhead!

[edit on 9-1-2009 by PuterMan]