Quake Watch 2011

reply to post by muzzy
9.2

reply to post by PuterMan


I was especially intrigued by this one:
folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu...
Never saw one like it!

reply to post by diamondsmith


Sorry I have to 'disagree' with you just a teensy bit. Both take their data from EMSC and USGS, i.e. from 2 sources, and both are very bad at reacting to changes - and there are many changes. I currently have 254 revisions to earthquakes above mag 3 in the past 7 days.

Global Incident software also cannot deal with negative magnitudes.

You have to remember that like my system these are all automated. It is not a person making the mistakes it is a computer, and computers can be very dumb.

It is extremely unlikely that they use data from anywhere else except perhaps New Zealand mainly because other areas are very difficult to handle. It has taken me over 6 months to get lists from Japan running correctly.

Iceland is a nightmare as well.

Much depends on which files they use. I use the 7 days files so I catch pretty much all changes up to that point BUT I suspect that for speed many use the 1 hour files thus once a quake is past 1 hour changes do not get detected.

There is no way either of them can be sued for providing the data, any more than USGS or EMSC can imho.

reply to post by wasobservingquietly


Wel my guess would be an instrument that was flat-lined and dead as a dodo. It was then resuscitated and took a while to settle down and started showing microseisms with a couple of other hiccups but............ain't now way not no how that is set at 2000 mV and showing those it don't think. TA might have an opinion on that perhaps.

The other possibility is that it was on 2000 and thus showing nothing and got switched and much of the telemetry blips showing are because of the control signals. It is now at a lower mV but is showing 2000 until that section is cleared off.

reply to post by diamondsmith

I'm sorry to ask but can anyone calculate this?If I am in L.A and The time is 10 minutes to 4 pm and I feel the earthquake and the earthquake is triggered in the ocean and tsunami wave hit at 4:29 pm, then What could be the distance and the point in the ocean where the earthquake occurred?San Francisco is struck 4:41 pm!!

When you say SF is struck I assume you mean by the tsunami from the 9.2? I am going to go for Clipperton Island or somewhere in that area - but I am just guessing.

reply to post by PuterMan
Yes, by the tsunami ,the question is if it could be a real scenario as the things evolves for past days!!!

WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH AFRICA?????

reply to post by diamondsmith


Other than it is splitting apart - you have stumped me Lucy - splain

Earthquake List for Map of Africa Region
Update time = Fri Oct 14 20:00:01 UTC 2011


Here is a list of the earthquakes located by the USGS and contributing networks for the Map of Africa Region. Most recent events are at the top. (Some early events may be obscured by later ones on the map.) Click on the date portion of an earthquake record in the list below for more information.

MAG UTC DATE-TIME
y/m/d h:m:s LAT
deg LON
deg DEPTH
km Region
MAP 4.9 2011/10/11 16:46:13 27.026 66.592 34.8 PAKISTAN
MAP 5.1 2011/10/10 19:07:03 37.255 22.083 15.3 SOUTHERN GREECE
MAP 4.7 2011/10/09 21:23:09 35.920 22.289 39.2 CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN SEA
MAP 5.1 2011/10/09 14:47:18 -26.986 38.610 14.1 SOUTH INDIAN OCEAN

Source

reply to post by Anmarie96
I'll splain.I think I might buy a armor to visit the Parthenon next year!!!

reply to post by Anmarie96
Of course if my compass still work properly,but who knows what will be!!!

Originally posted by diamondsmith
I'm sorry to ask but can anyone calculate this?If I am in L.A and The time is 10 minutes to 4 pm and I feel the earthquake and the earthquake is triggered in the ocean and tsunami wave hit at 4:29 pm, then What could be the distance and the point in the ocean where the earthquake occurred?San Francisco is struck 4:41 pm!!

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by muzzy

 

9.2

Is this a trick question?
1. If LA gets hit at 4:29 and SF at 4:41 one has to assume it has come from the south or south west
2. If you felt a 9.2 then it couldn't have been that far away say less than 1500km
3. There are no known Faults capable of producing a Mag 9.2 to the SW, only to the N or NW (Aluetians or British Columbia area) and if that was the case SF would get the tsunami first.
4. The other scenerio is to the South, where the Peru/Chile Trench is capabale of a Mag 9.2, and LA would get the tsunami first, but I doubt you would have felt it, and the tsunami would take a lot longer than 3/4hr to get there.
5. Way outside the "felt area" is also Hawaii, which would give a LA/SF tsunami in that order, but a 9.2 there would equate with the total collapse/eruption of the Big Island /Kileau volcano.

You writing a fantasy novel/movie script or something?

reply to post by muzzy


Good points. Also, when the poster above asked how long it would take for a tsunami to hit the coast after an ocean-based quake, I think the answer is "it depends". Last time I checked, it would depend on the depth of the quake (not just the depth of the ocean), and its size.

The general rule of thumb I use is that a tsunami can travel between 400 & 500mph, kind of like a trans-pacific airliner. They move fast. . . but also a function of the size and depth of the quake. Just my somewhat-informed opinion.

Magnitude
3.4
Date-Time
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 22:25:16 UTC
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 03:25:16 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location
46.753°N, 121.946°W
Depth
8.5 km (5.3 miles) set by location program
Region
WASHINGTON
Distances
6 km (4 miles) E (93°) from Ashford, WA
19 km (12 miles) E (94°) from Elbe, WA
28 km (17 miles) ESE (117°) from Eatonville, WA
67 km (42 miles) SE (144°) from Tacoma, WA
101 km (63 miles) SSE (163°) from Seattle, WA
Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 0.7 km (0.4 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters
NST= 64, Nph= 64, Dmin=10 km, Rmss=0.33 sec, Gp= 25°,
M-type=duration magnitude (Md), Version=1
Source
Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network
Event ID
uw10142225

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Originally posted by wasobservingquietly
reply to post by PuterMan

 

I was especially intrigued by this one:
folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu...
Never saw one like it!

Hey I check this thread everyday just to see what's going on, most of the time I am still not real sure, but I figure I'd be able to catch the drift of what is being said and if it pertains to me here in the Middle of TN.... anyway may I ask what exactly this, if you'd be so kind as to explain. THANKS in advance

reply to post by wasobservingquietly


I notice you mention Waverly TN, which I am very familiar with, as I live East of that area.. however I'm not really sure what this is, can you explain?

@ diamondsmith

rather than worry about some unlikely 9.2, why not study up on what might happen to your own area if there was a decent Mag 6,7 or 8 out at sea in the area where you are talking about

California Tsunami Inundation Maps

reply to post by shell69


Hi!
I was looking at the helicorders last night after the 6.7 to see how it showed up on different ones. There were some interesting 'patterns' that I never saw before!

The ones in states on the coast were pretty similar, but not all of them. Some in the midwest were more pronounced, which I thought might be attributed to underground aquifers, one did have 'cave' in the name! But Texas which is supposed to have a very large aquifer, not so much. Unless the drought could have affected it that much.

Whenever I made an assumption after seeing nearby ones, I was usually wrong! I guess it really is true what they say happens when you 'assume' something!

reply to post by angelchemuel


Wellllllll that's quite fascinating.

However, 40 years or so ago, I read a convincing book that was as convincing as Chaplain Williams is. I forget the title.

And, I'll also continue to agree with my North Slope loved ones who agree with Williams.

My Dad was a Shell Oil Jobber. It is quite plausible to me that Shell oil held lots of information--withheld even from fairly high ranking execs. They are at least a very interesting company.

I'm also fairly convinced that lots of oil is abiotic.

It will be most interesting to see who all was most correct and who was full of disinformation or worse about the topic. I'm sure not in touch personally with high ranking folks in the oligarchy.

However, I have 30+ years assessing folks in counseling sessions as to whether they are telling the truth, or not. I'll continue to consider Chaplain Williams as honest.

Certainly the fracking is a serious enough issue in terms of quakes as well as pollution of ground water etc.

What did your sources say about the incidence of quakes . . . frequency of fracking caused quakes?

What did they say was the most serious quake caused by or worsened by fracking? And where?

reply to post by BO XIAN


Sorry to jump in here. But. The most dramatic example of fracking and injection wells is in Arkansas. Colorado is the most common occurance cited. But Arkansas is ongoing. The fault, which may not be an old ancient fault, this new, artificial fault, could be bigger- or being made bigger- by the ongoing gas extraction process.

Arkansas is a disaster in the making.

reply to post by wasobservingquietly


Hey thanks so much for expanding on your post.. so that makes sense to me now.. and it is interesting what you observed.. that was a pretty big one 6.7 that is.. From what I've learned on here so far.. in my area an earthquake like that, due to the sandy geography would be absolutely no fun at all! I can definitely tell you that the specific location I've grown up in there is a lot of red muddy earth that does have a sandy texture.. that and rocks rocks and more rocks. I've heard of folks having to use dynamite just to put an inground pool on their property! Thanks again