reply to post by berkeleygal
Good morning, everyone. Lots to respond to on the thread but first I'd like to answer this query about those two-letter designations, because I
noticed this last night and wondered about it for a while until it clicked.
They are just short forms for the regions that are shown in the top left of the page:
Vancouver Island................VI (ie, V and capital "i")
Northern Washington..........NW
Southern Washington.........SW
Northern Oregon.................NO
Central Oregon...................CO
Southern Oregon................SO
Northern California..............NC
So -- mystery solved!
The second thing I'd like to comment on is the way the data summary is presented. For March 13, it shows:
03/13/2011
18 Hours
274 Epicenters (UTC)
I think it's important to keep a few things in mind. Firstly, please note that the times shown in the "normal" display are UTC, not US Pacific
time. So, the starting time for each day for the maps (and the tremors shown on them) is actually eight hours
before that day ends in the PNW.
This also means that if we are trying to find any correlation between activity in the PNW and (say) Japan, we need to be sure we're looking at the
right day!
Secondly, the "18 hours" does not refer to the time span of the tremors from start to finish. Rather, it specifies the total amount of tremor time
recorded. If that sounds like the same thing, it isn't. On the above-cited day, for example, the time of the first tremor was:
2011-03-13 00:00:00
The next one was at:
2011-03-13 00:05:00
The tremors continue throughout the entire 24-hour period, with not one hour being missed. Things were shaking
all day. So, while it says "18
hours" (of tremor) in the summary, that means the total time that actual shaking events were recorded, not the period from when the first tremor
started til the last one finished. To be fair, it's not like they are trying to hide anything by that, though. It's just that we need to be sure to
interpret what's given to us.
I feel that in future we should try and get a copy of the tremor times list, though. Just the raw list alone will give us a better idea of what the
time in the summary really means.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the first tremor listed for the above date began bang on midnight. And yet, if we are supposed to accept PNSN's
current data for March 12 are correct, there were no tremors at all on that day. Just a whopping 274 the next day (
way above the norm),
beginning at 00:00:00 hours.
Yeah, sure.
Luckily we know that's not the real case.
Bad move on their part to pull that data for March 12. Very bad idea. That's not good science.
Mike