Whats going on at yellowstone?

reply to post by MoorfNZ


MoorfNZ You can hunt down information on the new study showing Smith and Husen which can clarify how many quakes, and where they were located over time.

Shirakawa great graph for 1985 using all 3000 quakes. Use see the same two large spikes with a pause in between before the quakes finally wind down. Was the swarm only the first two pulses. And the others smaller swarms not asscociated with main event. I want to nail this down. I am seriously thinking about emailing Robert Smith to get the straight dope. Maybe the count was a function of the analysis and doesn't reflect the true number. Unless I can find something on this study specifically.

sorry. I just want a clear answer. I like to trust the data I refer to. At this point I don't know if this is the largest swarm ever or not.

Shirakawa, I noticed that the cumulative energy is near 4. What was the last swarm? 4.1? And I'm noticing quakes are migrating to the north and they seem to be getting deeper over time and not shallower. Did I read all that right?

reply to post by Shirakawa


yeah, I see....


Umm gotta biggest shock yet just coming in showing 40+ microns/sec

that will be 3.5+ material

correction: that's only on EH1 channel - vertical channel only 12 or so microns/sec... so about a 3.0 to 3.2

[edit on Tue Feb 2nd 2010 by TrueAmerican]

Of COURSE a huge one happens during Lost... of COURSE....... What's that, about a 3.2?

what's your thinking on the mag., depth on the 02:13 *+/- utc time 2.9 ? stronger downward beat

Jeezus - another biggie c. 2.18 UTC??!!

Looks like 3.2+?

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MoorfNZ]

Ok...was recorded at 2.9 - seemed bigger to me

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MoorfNZ]

Originally posted by Robin Marks
Shirakawa, I noticed that the cumulative energy is near 4. What was the last swarm? 4.1? And I'm noticing quakes are migrating to the north and they seem to be getting deeper over time and not shallower. Did I read all that right?

No, actually this chart only lists the cumulative number of earthquakes (blue numbers, line). The red numbers are the magnitude for each single red dot, not their cumulative value.

With several earthquakes well over M4 and a single M4.9, in terms of energy that swarm(s) is hard to beat by an extremely large margin.

reply to post by PuterMan


Hum Puterman etal - do you think they didn/t have the tech. to filter out the - vehicluar, mortorize etc. in the old instruments? - Might put a big differ on the lists - like what is being reviewed and revised mutlipal times now in order to put out somewhat more correct information -- good thing they have you all to help keep them ontrack and in line

If the last one was M2.9, then the one occurred just now is a M2.7.
This is getting exciting!

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

I've seen it's been revised to M3.1, then the latest one should be M2.8-2.9

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by MoorfNZ
Jeezus - another biggie c. 2.18 UTC??!!

Looks like 3.2+?

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MoorfNZ]

Ok...was recorded at 2.9 - seemed bigger to me

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MoorfNZ]

Aha - been upgraded to 3.1 now.. KNEW that was 3+

And another just in... looks like 2.9 ish? Wow, this is getting exciting...

aha, they revised it up to 3.1... in my range...

this isn't exact science, but using GEE for a while you can get pretty close.

In general though, one thing is clear: over the last few hours the average size of the bigger shocks is increasing in both frequency and magnitude.

Well that confirms with me that the one at 16:11 MST was a 2.4-2.6, but it has never been listed. They have reported most of the quakes that occurred between 15:30 and 17:00 MST, but not the big one. They are usually pretty good about reporting the larger ones quickly. I am very surprised they have not updated the 16:11 MST quake.

what the heck, chart is pegged? quake.utah.edu...

OH MY FOLKS!!! Maybe we should tone it down some :-X - looks like she's getting uptight

reply to post by shutterbugw


Click on correct date ...

do we have and 3.7 and 3.8 here ? - data slow - dial up

reply to post by Wisconsin Warm


To avoid showing potentially harmful data (wrong depths, locations, etc which may lead to misunderstandings), smaller earthquakes (lower than M2.5) are posted only after being reviewed by a seismologist. Those equal or larger than M2.5 are automatically posted, then usually reviewed a short while later by seismologists probably on duty solely for that (reviewing automatically located earthquakes).

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

[edit on 2010-2-2 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Anmarie96


Nah was 3.1 and 2.7

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MoorfNZ]

Feeling a little on the uneasy side. Shirakawa, say something smart that makes me feel like this is precedented...

[edit on 2-2-2010 by pantangele]

ok, sorry about the wrong dates