Quake Watch 2011

reply to post by PuterMan


Well,

Calculations show that a meteorite with a diameter of 30 m, weighing about 300,000 tons, traveling at a velocity of 15 km/sec (33,500 miles/hour) would release energy equivalent to about 20 million tons of TNT.

www.tulane.edu...

For mass and density of such an object:
en.wikipedia.org...

I imagine such a signature might look a bit like a nuclear blast signature? Just wondering is all. Heck, I spend so much time with GEE open and monitoring seismos all over the world, if I ever saw something of a large amplitude like that, that didn't look like a quake but was massive in amplitude- just wondering how I might distinguish that from a nuclear blast signature.

Interestingly, if S-waves can't travel through liquid and it hit the ocean, then I guess all we'd see would be P-waves?

Yeah, weird to think about...

reply to post by PuterMan


woow cool graphic, there must be a lot of data behind that, how many lines?

Are you going to include Yellowstone?

I haven't read the whole thread, just looked occasionally and there never seems much happening so I don't bother too much with it, if I started now from page one and each page took an hour and I read for 8 hours a day, that would be 87 days, should be done by the end of the year, and thats if I did nothing else during that time.
I have a week off recuperating after surgery and thought I might give it a crack at it, till I did the maths

reply to post by TrueAmerican

its intersting how old nuclear testing sites do not have residual quake activity, been a few years of non testing now, apart from the Koreans and Indians/Pakis, but you never see Tahiti (France) or Russian sites showing anything these days.
Most of the French undergound tests were regitsering in the low 6's and the biggest blast the Soviets did was 7.2 on the siesmos.
maybe those areas are all shook out like Syria/Isreal/Jordan are and that impact hole at Yucatan Pen., Mexico

reply to post by PuterMan


Excellent graph. It doesn't answer all my questions, but it sure as heck shows the diminishing nature of the Arkansas swarm. Also, it shows "foreshocks" in Virginia. There is quite the pause in the Arkansas swarm toward the end of 2010, I am still convinced they were slowing production and were doing "unofficial" testing. They were hedging their bets. I am interested that Colorado started up at the end of the pause, and then reappeared as the Arkansas swarm showed marked slowing. Alabama chimed in during the pause as well. I love the graph. It helps visualize the activity over time.

Summer5,

I think the activity is related due to many factors, many man-made, fracking etc. I think others here are noticing the increase, and the interesting series of events in the mid-west. Virginia woke up lots of people to the threat. I'd be repeating myself lots if I explained all the reasons why I think Arkansas is ground zero for all the activity. And why the oil boys are to blame for hastening the natural forces.

Simply put, these are mid continental quakes. Here's a great study- be skeptical- but note its merits.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I've written tons of stuff so you can read backward and check out the Arkansas thread along with its biblography.
Then you can be more specific.

Blame it all on the New Madrid. I thought there were three quakes. Damn, I double checked my history and there were four. Wow. Talk about a cluster. In that particular case it's hard to pick out a "main-shock".

earthquake.usgs.gov...

WTF do you have to log in twice to load images?

reply to post by muzzy


Umm - that's the only way I have been able to upload images here - ever

Excited? Sorry it is only earthquakes. Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado/Mexico, Virginia.

reply to post by PuterMan


Bet the Frackin Gods won't be liking that Graph Better you keep that in a secure file.

BKG - Fugi is the wrong corner dear. They were trying to make a timed box with four corner - to represent - oh NM

I KNOW fuji is in the wrong corner

I made a new map but can't upload it yet.

Originally posted by Robin Marks
reply to post by PuterMan

 

Excellent graph. It doesn't answer all my questions, but it sure as heck shows the diminishing nature of the Arkansas swarm. Also, it shows "foreshocks" in Virginia.

Summer5,

I think the activity is related due to many factors, many man-made, fracking etc. I think others here are noticing the increase, and the interesting series of events in the mid-west. Virginia woke up lots of people to the threat. I'd be repeating myself lots if I explained all the reasons why I think Arkansas is ground zero for all the activity. And why the oil boys are to blame for hastening the natural forces.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

edit on 16-9-2011 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)

Thank you for your reply. I have a couple question (still) sorry

you stated regarding Virginia "foreshocks"...you think the recent quake here was a foreshock and we will be getting a bigger one in the future (n Virginia)? Sorry, I follow the quake maps, I read all that the members share here (although I must admit - its so much information it makes my head ).

I live in Virginia, very close to the 37 mark that a lot of the quakes seem to be appearing on, or very close to.

Off topic, but for Putterman!

Tremor in New Zealand today, big quake in Australia. Ireland defeated AUSTRALIA 15/6 in World Cup. The community of World Rugby shuddered - and South Africa is considerable happier! Our #2 'enemy' is one down!

Putterman, click an Irish one for you team, they played magnificent. One game I will definitely watch again. It has been a very long time since any rugby player ran 98 meters in one go with the ball.

reply to post by summer5

you stated regarding Virginia "foreshocks"...you think the recent quake here was a foreshock and we will be getting a bigger one in the future (n Virginia)?

Well in my humble and uneducated opinion Virginia is showing the classic pattern of quakes so no I would NOT be expecting a bigger one in the future.

........but no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

6.7 Honshu. Waiting for details

Mmm, looks like it was an upgrade to the 6.6 but I can't see it anywhere. I popped up on my automated list but????

reply to post by summer5


Sorry to confuse you. I was talking about Puterman's graph which showed a couple quakes in Virginia before the "main-shock". What did it end up being, 5.8M?

I'd really be surprised if Virginia experiences another large quake. But I won't be surprised when another zone nearby has a large quake.



Monty Python's Flying Circus...

When I was a child, I knew I was wierd and different. After I watched my first eposide of Python on PBS, I felt relieved by the realization that I wasn't alone, and wasn't the only silly person in the world. I also indoctrinated my son early. His favorite sketch was the Cheese Shop. I'll never forget the phase he went through when he'd often say,

"I want to buy some cheese," whenever the mood hit him.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Robin Marks


Well here you go Robin. I really can't cram any more on this graph I don't think! I do have another 4 sets of data but they are so small they will get lost in the maze. Places like Kentucky, North Carolina etc.



@muzzy - just under 2000 lines scrunched (I love these technical terms) into 365

reply to post by PuterMan


Awesome. There's one thing the graph demonstrates for sure, and that's that there are lots of earthquakes in the mid-west US. I don't want you to crunch the numbers, but what would think the total energy would be if all the activity was described as one quake. I'll guess. 7.7M.

I know you have serious doubts about my "wave theory" and quakes in the eastern US. I share some of them. But here's an opportunity to observe. There have only been three quakes in the mid-west in the past few days. From looking at Arkansas seismos, it's obvious there is a really strong wave pattern in the Atlantic which is affection the beaches near the Carolinas.

Will there be an increase in quakes over the next day?

reply to post by Robin Marks


Well actually Robin it only takes a minute to tot up the spreadsheet.

The total energy of those earthquakes added together and converted back to a magnitude is...

Magnitude 5.881

Not as much as you thought - this is the joy and surprise of logarithmic values

41882464.6 MJoules = 5.881
31623902.5 MJoules = 5.800

reply to post by PuterMan


I'm a bit confused. You've obviously got the Virginia 5.8M on the graph, correct? So, I'm wondering how it isn't bigger, especially if you add in the 4.7M Arkansas, and the Colorado quakes, etc...

Aha! I think I may have found the answer to my previous question about a rough seismic waveform of an asteroid impact.

Critical to the analysis are nine man-made impacts. "NASA deliberately crashed some spacecraft into the Moon while the seismometers were operating," he explains. "They were the empty ascent stages of four lunar modules (Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17) and the SIV-B stages of five Saturn rockets (Apollo 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17)." Their seismic waveforms tell researchers what an impact should look like.

Above: A seismic waveform recorded when Apollo 12's lunar ascent module crashed into the Moon on Nov. 20, 1969.

Story here:
science.nasa.gov...

Let's hope I never see anything like that in my seismic travels.

Cause I won't stick around to post any threads. I am outta here and up to the highest mountain I can find to try and avoid the Mega Tsunami. Fortunately for me there is one about 30 minutes away. Probably won't make it.

But notice, that waveform is substantially different than that of a nuclear blast!


Further thinking about it though, if it was a good size asteroid, the amplitude of it alone would probably saturate out the seismos, so the actual signature would just appear as a thick black block, cut off at the top and bottom, and then...dropout, kaput, nada, nothing...

reply to post by Robin Marks


Remain confused for a while while I sort this out. I think I may have introduced an error

No, the figure is correct. A 5.8 is 5.62 times stronger than a 5.3 and a 5.3 is 7.94 times stronger than a 4.7. A 5.8 however is 44.67 times stronger than a 4.7

So those three quakes = a 5.853

Place, Mag, Energy MJ
Arkansas, 4.7 = 707,945.8
Colorado, 5.3 = 5,623,413.3
Virginia, 5.8 = 31,622,776.6
Totals of 3 = 37,954,135.6 which = Mag 5.853

If we add up 6 Colorado quakes (a bit over the value) we get:
Colorado 5.3 = 5,623,413.3
Colorado 5.3 = 5,623,413.3
Colorado 5.3 = 5,623,413.3
Colorado 5.3 = 5,623,413.3
Colorado 5.3 = 5,623,413.3
Colorado 5.3 = 5,623,413.3
Totals of 6x5.3= 33,740,479.5 = Mag 5.819

It comes to a bit more reversed because it is 6x not 5.62

Logarithms!!

reply to post by PuterMan


Well, if nothing else, the totals put the Virginia quake in perspective. All the other quakes added up don't come anywhere close to the energy released in that one quake. In fact, it's only a tiny fraction.

reply to post by Robin Marks


Mm, yes and no. This is where it gets confusing.

41,882,464.6 5.881 Total of quakes equivalent
31,623,902.5 5.800 Remove Virginia 5.8
10,258,562.1 5.474 Balance of quakes equivalent.

Which actually means the Virginia quake was about 4 x stronger than all the others but together.