5.6 Gulf of California

I also feel that this is one could be a foreshock to a greater magnitude...

dead fish washing shore
swarm in the last few weeks
5.6 mag....

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

 

Congratulations muzzy? Don't you mean commiserations that it did not get up to the level of October last year?

Mag 5 quakes happen in this area.

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-04-26 21:10:26, 27.439, -111.597, 5.6, 15.1, Gulf Of California
2011-04-26 21:10:25, 27.500, -111.660, 5.1, 10.0, Gulf Of California
2011-03-12 17:13:01, 25.465, -109.727, 5.1, 10.0, Gulf Of California
2011-03-12 14:11:04, 25.395, -109.651, 5.3, 12.1, Gulf Of California
2011-03-12 13:26:02, 25.350, -109.930, 5.5, 17.6, Gulf Of California
2010-10-28 02:22:26, 23.138, -108.496, 5.3, 9.9, Gulf Of California
2010-10-25 10:06:14, 24.600, -109.220, 5.0, 10.0, Gulf Of California
2010-10-21 17:53:14, 24.842, -109.171, 6.7, 10.0, Gulf Of California
2010-10-20 06:58:15, 24.623, -108.992, 5.8, 10.0, Gulf Of California
2010-10-20 04:15:37, 24.532, -109.103, 5.5, 10.0, Gulf Of California
2010-10-20 04:09:44, 24.612, -109.060, 5.7, 14.4, Gulf Of California

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3c361360076.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 26/4/2011 by PuterMan because: Oops, forgot the attribultion.

Just...

Thank you

reply to post by jewston


just sayin, and quote me, when the big one hits, it'll be in the 9 range, a 9.4...and we're gonna watch it build up, and then it will happen....

Originally posted by youthsavior
reply to post by jewston

 

just sayin, and quote me, when the big one hits, it'll be in the 9 range, a 9.4...and we're gonna watch it build up, and then it will happen....

That would be some serious doom.

Most of these megathrust quakes we've seen the last few years (i.e. sumatra, chile, japan) have had their epicenters off shore in the ocean at a moderate depth.

Can you imagine the destruction a mag 9 quake would have if the epicenter was on land? Even a 8.0 mag quake would be disasterous under those circumstances.

reply to post by jude11

Well where we are a 5.0 is a bit of a relief, especially when there has been nothng of note for a while.
Lets hope thats it and there is nothing too big coming further north.

reply to post by jude11




I was sort of kidding! Sorry. Yes this area does have a range of quakes but I don't see any 9.0+ quakes in this area happening. Further up maybe but just here, probably not.

Earlier significant quakes in a 100km radius of the last quake are:

PDE 1974 05 31 140459.90 27.23 -111.24 33 6.4 UKPAS ... ....... 42
PDE 1988 06 18 224942.37 26.86 -111.00 10 7.0 MsGS .FM ....... 87
PDE 2006 01 04 083232.40 28.16 -112.12 14 6.6 MwHRV 4FM ....... 95

earthquake.usgs.gov...

That particular catalog does not have the more recent ones. With ANSS using delta=27.439, -111.597,0,100 for 01/01/1900 onwards I get

Your search parameters are:

* catalog=ANSS
* start_time=1900/01/01,00:00:00
* end_time=2011/04/27,10:43:23
* minimum_magnitude=6.0
* maximum_magnitude=10
* event_type=E
* delta=0 km to 100 km from (27.439,-111.597)

Date Time Lat Lon Depth Mag Nst Gap Clo RMS SRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1974/05/31 14:04:59.90 27.23 -111.24 33.00 6.30 52 0.00 NEI
2006/01/04 08:32:32.40 28.16 -112.12 14.00 6.60 323 1.25 NEI

The reason for the differences is the magnitude type. The MsGS 7.0 is probably under 6.0 Mw which is why it does not show on the ANSS catalog.

Basically in 100 years there has been nothing of huge significance in the area is what this is telling us.

This does not mean that there will not be in the future

where was that floating HAARP platform at? hmmmm. just wondering, you never know... but i hope everyones alright.

Any news..?