Quake Watch 2010

There is no point having a quake watch.

All that can predict quakes is the behaviour of animals.

Year Mo Dy Hr Mn Secs Lat Lon Depth Mag Locality Other information
2010 08 06 03 39 01.7 54.099 -2.538 12.3 1.4 CARNFORTH, CUMBRIA 15KM E OF CARNFORTH

2010 08 04 00 02 50.7 54.354 -2.894 2.4 1.7 WINDERMERE, CUMBRIA 3 3KM SE OF WINDERMERE; FELT KENDAL

2010 07 30 23 39 39.7 51.665 -2.430 14.6 2.7 STROUD, GLOUCESTERSHIR 3 16KM SW OF STROUD, FELT STROUD

www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk...



1.4 and 2,7 ............ insignificant you say?
Well probably more people felt these puppies than the 3 x Mag 7's in the Moro Gulf a few weeks ago, so don't give me a hard time.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by muzzy]

Originally posted by catwhoknows
There is no point having a quake watch.

All that can predict quakes is the behaviour of animals.

This is not about predicting quakes, this is about recording them for discussion, just like back in 3000BC the Chinese wrote them down on screens of silk or painted data on pots

And besides, not all animals sense quakes, we have had 3 dogs and 3 cats over the years who didn't even raise an eyebrow for a Mag 6 while it was happening right underneath us



[edit on 9-8-2010 by muzzy]

reply to post by muzzy


Hi muzzy, a couple of point here with regard to it getting 'worse'.

• Firstly I would not accuse BGS or USGS of actually telling lies. Remember that most of these sites have this sort of information and of course it is historical. It is fair to say that excluding 2010 the number of quakes peer year is reasonably consistent.
  
• A huge number of organisations when looking at worldwide data use the same source which is......NEIC
  
• The further back in time you go the less likely it is that the central data is accurate, which is why your project is good as it is pulling data from sources all round the world which is something that the main sources do not and should help to fill in gaps. Nevertheless the further back the less accurate.
  

BGS have no axe to grind since as pointed out there are very few quakes in the UK so it really does not matter if there is an increase. USGS are watched not only by the scientific community at large, but also by ATS and I have it on record from USGS that they believe they cannot 'hide' things because ATS will seek them out. You recall the outage of the telemetry hub in YNP? They were most concerned that ATS members would be crying 'cover up' because the data was not getting out.

We will need to wait until the end of 2010 to see what the figures look like, and then see how these bodies react in their output. In the meantime I am getting more convinced that there is a significant increase THIS YEAR over other years but there have been some releases this year which have contributed significantly to the figures notably Chile and the Moro Gulf. At the lower scales there has been Baja and indeed a fair contribution from the Fox Islands.

There are other areas that are not covered by the NEIC/ANSS databases that have a significant output - for example the areas covered by the EMSC which unless 4.5 or greater do not now appear in the USGS figures. This has the effect of skewing the lower end of the range.

I am more and more convinced that what matters is NOT the number of quakes but the energy release. As an example:

20 x 7.0 quakes is 20,000 Energy release mUnits (an arbitrary figure)
10 x 7.5 quakes is 56,234 Energy release mUnits (based on the same calc)

So this would be reported as a decrease - YAY whereas in fact in terms of the energy released into the earth it is a 250 percent increase

This is why I consider energy release is so much more important. After all it is the energy release (on the faults) that determines the effect of the quake and moves the pressure along the system or relieves it.

:shk: Edited for the inevitable spelling errors :shk:

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by muzzy


Actually I find those UK quakes quite significant since there are so few in the UK. That is the most I have seen on the list for some time over such a short period.

I am going to have to add the UK to my watch list!!! OMG we will be having them in Ireland next. (Before everyone rush to the key board - yes they do happen. 2 in the last 8 years that I am aware of but there are probably more.)

2010 Clare County
The other that I recall was a couple of years ago off the Dublin coast.

Apparently there were 2 small ones in Donegal this year which I was unaware of, and did not feel. (North of me)

BGS cover the British Isles which as part of your edumacation is a geographical area and not a political one and covers the Republic Of Ireland (Eire) as well. (I lie, just found this which shows that perfidious Albion is NOT covering Ireland. I must try and find out where our centre is because the is nothing on the Irish Geological Survey site.)

Edit: Actually I have just found this PDF which is an intensity map (I assume) of earthquakes in the British Isles. You can see how few there are in Ireland by comparison to Britain, and there aren't many there. Unfortunately this map gives no indication of the time period but I suspect we are talking centuries.

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by PuterMan
USGS are watched not only by the scientific community at large, but also by ATS and I have it on record from USGS that they believe they cannot 'hide' things because ATS will seek them out. You recall the outage of the telemetry hub in YNP? They were most concerned that ATS members would be crying 'cover up' because the data was not getting out.

Amen.

I am still waiting for the USGS report on another quake that happened today the 9th at about 6:12 UTC in the new little hotspot in Southeastern Teton near Yellowstone.

Yes Jake, I saw it in GEE. Rocked all the stations on the IW network, and pushed near 400 microns/sec on the LOHW station. So let's have it already. Should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 or so. Don't make me pull out the screen shots...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


That will be this one then?

LOHW.IW..BHZ.2010.221

2 seconds with my program (I have stored the plot in case of shenanigans)

Yes I would agree, it looks like a 3+

Edit: Gathered up a few more for you
REDW.IW..BHZ.2010.221
TPAW.IW..BHZ.2010.221
YHB.WY..EHZ.2010.221
B944.PB..EHZ.2010.221

and you can just see it on this one
J23A.TA..BHE.2010.221

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by PuterMan




Umm yep, that do be the one. Glad you looked that up, cause honestly, I did not save the screenshots... But I told ya, it's there... And no other global quakes around that time either, so I am pretty sure that came from the hotspot and is not a tele...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


It will certainly be one in this area right by the recorder LOHW since that seems to have the biggest sharpest signal.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d13dac9af4ea.png[/atsimg]

As you observe, no global ones at that time. Odd. Why is it not up there?

Edit: Thinking about this, what time is it over there 07:30 ish. Maybe they just have not go to it yet to check it out? I would have thought the automatic element would have kicked in, but may be not. (Bust?, not big enough?)

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

It will certainly be one in this area right by the recorder LOHW since that seems to have the biggest sharpest signal.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d13dac9af4ea.png[/atsimg]

As you observe, no global ones at that time. Odd. Why is it not up there?

Edit: Thinking about this, what time is it over there 07:30 ish. Maybe they just have not go to it yet to check it out? I would have thought the automatic element would have kicked in, but may be not. (Bust?, not big enough?)

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

Oh, it's big enough, just look at the waveform. 400 microns/sec? That has to be at least a 2.5 on a bad day with me out of practice, and the quake occurring very close to the station.

I dunno, but they sure are taking their darn sweet time. We report. The USGS decides.

ETA: If it comes up, should definitely show up at this link:
www.seis.utah.edu...

[edit on Mon Aug 9th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


A few seconds ago I sent this:

Dear Sirs

At approximately 06:12:30 UTC there was a seismic event evidenced on the LOHW recorded as evidenced by this plot

www.iris.washington.edu...

This event which looks to be approximately of the order of Magnitude 3.0+ has not appeared on the listings for Intermountain West or USGS and yet it is an order of magnitude that would be automatically recorded.

I am wondering why this has not happened. This event was recorded on many IW stations and on instruments in the WY and TA networks.

Regards

We will see what happens

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

With regard to my program I know some were asking about the link.

I have today discovered that I have a real problem with the EMSC data because of the way they display their web site. It is shedding earthquakes (sound familiar?). This is because of the way I have to scrape the site and check for deletions.

I may have a solution but it is going to be a week or more to get it all sorted and checked out so my apologies for any delay - not that anyone is hanging on the edge of their seat for it!

Edit: If anyone is interested I have uploaded one Google Earth KML file for each month of this year from EMSC to my 4shared site

This does NOT include August.

The files all start export_EMSC...

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by PuterMan

Maybe they are not telling lies, but I doubt they would tell the whole truth if the facts showed that there has been a dramtic increase recently.
You are probably right about the energy release, Just going through the 1910's now and there appear to be a lot more Major quakes ie bigger than 7.5, even if there are less "7's" overall. Not all quakes have the MM intensity shown so it would be hard to build a file based on that alone.
This is where I struggle with the BGS historic data, its all based on Intensity and where quakes were felt, and doesn't give the locations of the actual quakes, unless I have missed something


There is a lot of information out there, and I am preparing myself to collect and tabulate pre 1900 data soon, one of the sources I am going to use is the Catalogue of Destructive Earthquakes by J.Milne published in 1912. In that he give earthquakes as "intensity" I, II, III so I have to work out how to convert that to our present system. Possibly they may match up with utsu's catalogue from iisee, he has done this conversion already. The Milne catalogue goes back to 7 AD. (Milne estimates that in the 1900 years that he looked at there were approx. 60 million earthquakes of which 100,000 were "world shaking" events, and he has only listed 6000 )

It may be that in the past there were periods of high activity like there has been in the last 4 years, too early in my research to tell, all I can confirm right now is that there are more quakes now (2007-2010) based on data from the last 100 years (1910-2010)
I'm going to have to brush up on my Geography skills too, there are entries such as this eg;
1130AD Mesopotamia, Hira Gansana? Aleppo and Ambar or Amla? III (Intensity)
some have co-ordinates eg;
1139AD Caucasia (Elizabetpol) Ganja, 40 40N, 46 20E Kapassi Dagh 40 22, 46 20E III (Intensity)
1114AD Mar 12, Asia Minor, Samosata, 3730N., 3832E. ; Ghisn-Mansur, 3745N.3820E. : Khesun, 3735N.3751E. ; Marash, 3736N. 3652E. ; Kaben, 3749N. III (Intensity)
some are quite specific eg;
811AD (no month or day) Scotland, St Andrews, destroyed town and 1400 people III (Intensity)
1510AD June 10, Bavaria, Nordlingen; 2000 perished III (Intensity)
1618AD Aug 25 Throughout Switzerland, in the Pays du Vaud, Orisons and the Valteline III (Intensity)

Milnes Intensity III. Earthquake with this intensity are those which destroyed towns and devastated districts. . The ground has been faulted and fissured whilst from these openings water, mud, and sand may issue. In a hilly country landslips will be common. The acceleration may exceed 8000mm. or 10ft. iu' 1' sec. per sec. ............. sounds like a 7+ to me

I need a $4million grant from USGS, so I can give up my day job and do this properly

reply to post by PuterMan

That BGS Helicorder is interesting, I just clicked a few stations and most are flat-lining, except Edinburgh which has 6 quakes on it
and Stoke and Etham have a LOT of activity on it.
I wonder if there is a way to see them all on one page?




[edit on 9-8-2010 by muzzy]

Originally posted by muzzy
I wonder if there is a way to see them all on one page?

Where there is a PuterMan there is a way!

BGS plots on one page

These go in order top to bottom , left to right.

You don't know where Hira and Gansana are? What did they teach you at school

Aleppo (Syria)

Might this be Amla?

Can't find Ambar because it is a name, an alternate to amber and Ambar India Restaurant in Cincinnati so Google is full of rubbish but the Ambar India Restaurant name might be a clue.

Yay, found it Ambar, Pakistan. I think this must be it. See the last one in the list.

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

Berkeleygal you feel this???

Magnitude 4.0
Date-Time Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 00:51:10 UTC
Monday, August 09, 2010 at 05:51:10 PM at epicenter

Location 36.908°N, 121.641°W
Depth 5.3 km (3.3 miles)
Region NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Distances 2 km (2 miles) N (0°) from Aromas, CA
10 km (6 miles) E (84°) from Pajaro, CA
10 km (6 miles) ENE (60°) from Las Lomas, CA
11 km (7 miles) E (97°) from Watsonville, CA
23 km (14 miles) WNW (288°) from Hollister, CA
53 km (33 miles) SSE (155°) from San Jose City Hall, CA

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.2 km (0.1 miles); depth +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles)
Parameters Nph= 90, Dmin=3 km, Rmss=0.13 sec, Gp= 36°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=2
Source California Integrated Seismic Net:
USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR

Event ID nc71444201


[edit on 9-8-2010 by Anmarie96]

reply to post by Anmarie96


I did not. That's about 100 miles south west of Berkeley. But I am telling you, they are coming closer to me. I am ready!

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by muzzy
I wonder if there is a way to see them all on one page?

Where there is a PuterMan there is a way!

BGS plots on one page

These go in order top to bottom , left to right.

hey thats brilliant , better than BGS
I guess they are not auto updating?

Check out Market Rasen , the graph is pretty lively in your screenshot, just tapering off right now live on BGS (short period), I had a look to see where it was, the station co-ordinates from BGS put it out at sea off Grimsby, near Hull
they have the Longitude wrong it should be 0.3274 WEST, not East

Its going to be fun finding those old towns and cities, Geography was my favourite subject at school, not so much History .



[edit on 9-8-2010 by muzzy]

reply to post by muzzy


No unfortunately not updating, but it is part of a new project in my program and when released will be updating. It allows you to select any heli plot anywhere in the world (I hope) and basically create your own custom page like the Live Internet Server. I have it working for the USGS ones and the private helicorders, but the USGS have nice thumbnails. I need to make thumbs of the others and try and do that without using too much bandwidth. (Double download.)

That recorder should be West - just! Of course UK has both west and east.

Specially for you I have updated it to the 10th. Take a look at Market Rasen. What is going on there? [edit: Just realised you said that]

[edit on 9/8/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by PuterMan



thanks

I wish NZ would do theirs in UTC, the way they have it now is x hours ago, I find it hard to compare events on the search results with the graphs, UTC would be way easier.

Market Rasen dunno, is there coal mines near there?

[edit on 10-8-2010 by muzzy]

New Moon

today NZST

REF, LAT, LONG, UTC TIME, DEPTH, MAG
3352865, -35.73779, 178.43956, 2010/8/9 6:14:18, 179, 4.405
3352922, -45.04335, 167.47784, 2010/8/9 8:7:33, 94, 4.451, FELT

Map