Quake Watch 2010

I have downloaded the SAC file for REDW from 8pm to midnight 12 Sep 2010 (UTC). This is the spectrum analysis of the unedited file. (I have made no adjustments)



When you look at a seismograph plot the three bigger ones should be at the following positions. The upper left is the time in the wave file and the lower right is the time this should be seen on the seismo plot.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/441d774682e2.png[/atsimg]

Here is the sound file

25x speed and completely un-touched.

reply to post by PuterMan


That "quake song" was the most interesting I have heard yet from you. Like standing in a huge cavern and hearing thunder from a distance, and the echoes.. fascinating!. After a while I was listening for the sound of rain

Thanks for getting that together for us!

Magnitude 3.4 - WYOMING
2010 September 13 02:43:53 UTC

Location
43.115°N, 110.747°W
Depth
5 km (3.1 miles) set by location program
Region
WYOMING
Distances
22 km (14 miles) S (175°) from Hoback, WY
23 km (14 miles) ESE (103°) from Alpine, WY
23 km (14 miles) ESE (108°) from Alpine Northeast, WY
40 km (25 miles) S (177°) from Jackson, WY
279 km (173 miles) NNE (19°) from Salt Lake City, UT
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 5.4 km (3.4 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters
NST= 36, Nph= 36, Dmin=39 km, Rmss=0.92 sec, Gp= 40°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=7
Source
U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center:
World Data Center for Seismology, Denver
Event ID
us2010bda6

Originally posted by PuterMan
I am thinking this is nothing to be getting excited about. When all is said and done it is only 33 miles from the little swarm in August, so I guess this is probably just an adjustment as a result of that.

Well, I would tend to agree except for one minor little problem.

According to this picture, there are no known transform faults or ridges where these three Wyoming quakes have just occurred:



Here's the url that came from, for more info;
neic.usgs.gov...

But quakes do occur on unknown (or unmapped) faults sometimes, so it's possible this could be that kind of situation. With that huge magma plume sitting under Yellowstone to the north of these quakes though, it could also have something to do with that. Anything that happens in that whole region seems to have something to do with Yellowstone.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


But quakes do occur on unknown (or unmapped) faults sometimes, so it's possible this could be that kind of situation.

Yep, we Cantabrians know all too well that this is the case. I feel we will have to refine our techniques and analysis of such features as knick points and how they relate to fault regimes and possibly pay more mind to previously thought of as "quack" notions to aid our understanding...'quake lights, animal (other than human) reactions and ultra low frequency electromagnetic radio waves.. Of course, geophysics is a useful and invaluable tool, but given the expense of running surveys it is, unfortunately, prohibitive at this point in time to run surveys the length and breadth of the land.

Looks like two shakes just after midnight but nothing on USGS

www.seis.utah.edu...

reply to post by aorAki


Well, we don't necessarily have to resort to that. This could be an unmapped fault adjusting itself as Puterman suggests, but it also could be part of the Yellowstone magma plume finding pressure release in fissures in the upper crust. The thing is though that it would appear to be a touch too far away from the mapped hotspot for that to be true.

But that assumes that seismographic tomography is 100% accurate. I don't make that assumption after having looked into it a bit. Once you understand the tremendous quantities of deceptive variables they are up against trying to map the crust, let alone the mantle, and with seismic waves no less, it seems to me that 50% accuracy is more likely the case. And that's if they are lucky.

So the point being that the plume could be doing a lot of things we don't know about, even IF we were able to monitor it much more accurately than we can now. It COULD be escaping that far south, yes.

Puterman, a few things - your edits - I'm still rolling!!! The audio is Awesome. and, I do not think the latest rounds of 4's are settling effects of the 4.8.

Magnitude 5.1
Date-Time Monday, September 13, 2010 at 02:48:07 UTC
Monday, September 13, 2010 at 12:48:07 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 0.412°N, 28.743°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
Distances 625 km (385 miles) NE of Fernando de Noronha, Pernambuco, Brazil
990 km (620 miles) NE of Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
1080 km (670 miles) NE of Joao Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil
2760 km (1720 miles) NE of BRASILIA, Distrito Federal, Brazil

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 17.1 km (10.6 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST= 23, Nph= 23, Dmin=>999 km, Rmss=1.53 sec, Gp= 86°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)


Event ID us2010bdba

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Sorry True American, I could not resist!

I stand by what I said - this is settlement or stress movement down the fault lines. No need to worry until it gets to California!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70197ae25920.png[/atsimg]




Heh! This really is an edit:

But that assumes that seismographic tomography is 100% accurate. I don't make that assumption after having looked into it a bit. Once you understand the tremendous quantities of deceptive variables they are up against trying to map the crust, let alone the mantle, and with seismic waves no less, it seems to me that 50% accuracy is more likely the case. And that's if they are lucky.

Sort of like trying to find your way on a dark night in thick fog with a candle lantern. As I have said before I think the bulk of this is guesswork. 50% is being very kind. But don't knock it, it keeps the funding rolling in.

Actually thinking about it I don't think I did mention what I thought about their new theory for broken plates and hot spots. Not a lot. I wrote a long diatribe but cancelled it. The theory is seriously defunct in any form of logic as far as I can see, and to suggest Yellowstone is unique in having a hot spot near a plate boundary - well what about Iceland? Does that not sit astride a plate boundary and also have a plume as big as Yellowstone - if you believe the tomography. And yet they say Iceland has moved over the hot spot which was under Greenland. Oh right and the mid Atlantic ridge just moved under Iceland right along with it? Bovine thingy. The periods of time are too long and the depth too great to make any of these 'theories' anything other than guesswork. Even subduction cannot be proven. (And before any geologists jump on me - think about it - you cannot PROVE it.)

is it possible that the inner core is heating up... due to microwave fronts from the sun...
could explaine the strong seismic activity last years... even the high pressurs of oil-wells...:-(

reply to post by ressiv


I would have to say that if the sun was putting out enough microwaves to heat the inner core I would image that we would be frazzled!

Of course I know little of microwaves other than to avoid them so maybe you have a point but I would imagine that the strength required to heat the earth would do us in.

reply to post by PuterMan


And I stand by what I said.

There are STILL no mapped faults directly below the epicenters. Your faults are miles away.

In any case, the constant micro quakes at this new spot in Wyoming have died down to near zero activity over the last day.

Puterman, it would be good if you could get a known spectral analysis of magma intrusion, so when these things happen close to YS, we could better know. Is there such a thing? Haven't they got this from any of the volcanoes around?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1b2d3fb3095.jpg[/atsimg]

One in Baja California:

Magnitude 5.4
Date-Time Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:52:17 UTC
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 03:52:17 AM at epicenter

Location 32.004°N, 115.183°W
Depth 11.5 km (7.1 miles) (poorly constrained)
Region BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Originally posted by lasertaglover
One in Baja California:

Magnitude 5.4
Date-Time Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:52:17 UTC
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 03:52:17 AM at epicenter

Location 32.004°N, 115.183°W
Depth 11.5 km (7.1 miles) (poorly constrained)
Region BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO

earthquake.usgs.gov...

I assume these are still counted as aftershocks??

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Yes I am pretty sure I can get that from the Mount St Helens eruption - I will see what I can find - but the published 'harmonic tremor' for Mt St Helens the author admits may not be so.(I happen to think it probably is however)

With regards to the faults those quakes are all on a DIRECT line North from the Greys River Fault - a distance of just 8 miles - and you can bet that the fault as marked extends that far. This is part of a whole line of faults marching North and I would bet you that these quakes are directly on a fault - an extension of that one.

I can tell you however that there is absolutely no indication of magma intrusion - harmonic tremor - either on the seismometer graphs or in the sound file. I have heard it in Yellowstone before (I think) some time ago, but that particular sound does not exist here (at present).

I know I have posted this before but here it is again:

Superb example of an harmonic tremor.

Originally posted by PuterMan
I can tell you however that there is absolutely no indication of magma intrusion - harmonic tremor - either on the seismometer graphs or in the sound file. I have heard it in Yellowstone before (I think) some time ago, but that particular sound does not exist here (at present).

I know I have posted this before but here it is again:

Superb example of an harmonic tremor.

Well be wary that not all magma intrusion is going to exhibit harmonic tremor characteristics. A harmonic tremor is generated when the magma enters a chamber of sorts which causes the walls to vibrate at a frequency of around 2 to 6 Hz or so.

But what about when magma is on the move through smaller cracks and fissures (or too big) that don't create the resonant effect? If you think about it, most magma is probably moving throughout the earth with no signs of harmonic tremor at all. And so the point being that the theory is still plausible here.

reply to post by MoorfNZ


The media is reporting Baja as an earthquake - have they been having aftershocks up until this time? Its a pretty significant aftershock if that's what it is.


Thanks for the great info everyone - the San Andreas scares me!

Originally posted by MoorfNZ

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1b2d3fb3095.jpg[/atsimg]

LOVE the cartoon! Thanks!

double post how does that happen? I only clicked it once!