Quake Watch 2010

reply to post by Anmarie96


You're on the ball tonight! Is that close to the New Madrid fault?

Not felt in Louisville...

www.courier-journal.com...


I've done extensive study into the major New Madrid quakes, and there were indeed a few in Indiana and Missouri/Illinois weeks before the major quakes...

Its super rare to have one in Indiana.. hope its not a precursor to a big one.

I've made an updated map of probable faults in the New Madrid area based on older fault data and all quakes ever recorded--the really show you the where most fault lines are.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f285dafaaf81.jpg[/atsimg]

There was an earthquake in Indiana today! I didn't think that was possible!

Indiana Earthquake - CNN

Will be interesting to see if there will be aftershocks.....

reply to post by Pharyax


It's been about 2 hours and no aftershocks yet..

Indiana quake downgraded to 3.8.

No, not part of the New Madrid Seismic Zone. It in the area of the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone. I was trying to post maps but for some reason when I try to upload a photo at the moment, it keeps telling me I need to log in to use that feature.

I felt the shake here in Northern Ky. It lasted for just a few seconds. I thought it might be thunder since it is raining. This was extremely rare for this area, by that I mean around Indianapolis.

Originally posted by zenius
reply to post by muzzy

 

You have Mw Ms & Me. Aren't they all different? I don't know what they mean but would that have something to do with why your total is different to Puterman's? Great job both of you for keeping score. I reckon the 2008 record will be blown easily. Do you go by UTC or GMT? We have less than 30 hours to go here.

Yes thats correct and will account for the difference.I have used the highest magnitudes for those lists. My project was/is to tabulate ALL quakes above 7 regardless of the type of magnitude used. What the difference between Mw, Me and Ms is no one can answer in laymans terms, there is no easy formula to convert them all to one type.
Some quakes that usgs put out have Ms as well as Mw but not enough that you can work out the difference and have a formula to convert all quakes. It appears that different formulas are used for different regions, based on geology. What that means is that say a 7.5Mw in Iran may be a 7.2Ms, where as a 7.5Mw in the New Hebrides Trench may be a 7.6Ms, just because Iran is landlocked and the NHT is a subdction zone and under the sea.
At the end of the day (or the end of the year) does it relly matter? if its a 7.3Ms (say for arguments sake in this case converts to 6.9Mw) it wouldn't make the list as a Mag 7 according to usgs, but I challenge anyone who has been in a quake that size to tell me the difference in experience between a 6.9 and a 7.2.

This is why there is argument to use more broad catagories for earthquake size, and hense the very minor/minor/ light/medium/strong/ very strong/major/great descriptions for 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 magnitudes, but perhaps it should be very minor = 1.5-2.5/ minor = 2.5-3.5/light = 3.5-4.5/ medium = 5.5-6.5/strong = 6.5-7.5 etc

As long as the type of magnitude is shown then people can draw their own conclusions.

On my research I discounted hundreds of 6.9 quakes over the 100 year time span, which theoretically should have been in there and classed as "very strong" , which would have made the figures even more numerous per year.
45to47south.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by Anmarie96
Indiana quake downgraded to 3.8.

No, not part of the New Madrid Seismic Zone. It in the area of the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone. I was trying to post maps but for some reason when I try to upload a photo at the moment, it keeps telling me I need to log in to use that feature.

So open that photo upload page in another window and log in

Its an ATS feature that drives me mad too.

reply to post by muzzy


Damn, nothing is ever straight forward with this earthquake business is it? About time the world and the earthquake mobs bought it all into line and made some sense. (or told us the secrets they use).

And I second the complaint about the log in for media hassle.

Oh Dangit, I missed it! Would of been fun to experience again. It is such a rare event here. We had one back in 2008 that woke me up.

The Indiana Geological Survey had no records of a 3.8 magnitude earthquake in Central Indiana ever, according to the Indianapolis Star. The director of the IGS told the Star that the quakes location--about 3 miles below the ground--was "highly irregular" and "extremely rare."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The epicenter is "highly irregular, extremely rare, unprecedented,” John Steinmetz, director of the Indiana Geological Survey at Indiana University, told the Star Press at Muncie.

www.indystar.com...

There's a small gallery here that seems to be showing photos of a crack in the snow created by the earthquake. Neat little visual.

www.indianasnewscenter.com...

I am in Ft. Wayne, Indiana - didn't feel the quake. Will talk with my family later in Ky and see if they did. Thanks for all the info - I would have thought it was the New Madrid fault. Fingers crossed for nothing larger.

reply to post by Anmarie96


Here you go AnneMarie.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9b1b87748c4.jpg[/atsimg]

So the quake was even further NE than that? Does the Wabash extend further than on this map?
(ps ignore the earthquakes on the map, the source doesn't say when they occured)

link

reply to post by zenius


Yikes... On that map (which is the best I have seen) that red dot to the left of Evansville is where my sister and her family are moving to real soon. They have their house already. I have sent her that map and have asked her to PLEASE be prepared for any quake activity. I live in a quake zone and now she will too. I am a little concerned and wish they would stay high in the hills in WVa.

Looking at this coronal hole on our Sun, solar stream should hit us Jan 3, new Moon on the 4th.

I predict several VLQ's in the South Pacific and the West Coast of the USA around that time.

We'll see.

So what is it? 5.0 or 4.4?

EMSC
USGS

reply to post by muzzy


Sorry but this has to be done on USGS data only this time round since i don't have the access of time to get data from all sources right down to Mag 5.

The there is the problem of a 6 on EMSC being a 5.9 in USGS ans sometimes the other way round. It is just too much work this time round so i am sticking to USGS for this exercise.

I hope tha by next year I will have it sorted out but for example Chile is a day by day manual load and 10 years of data is much screen scraping. Once caught up it is not so bad.

PS I think today took into second place in the 11 years.

reply to post by zenius


UTC is GMT to all intents and purposes. There is only fractions of a second in it.

I tend nowadays to have dropped GMT and use UTC or Zulu.