 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Geology - Earthquakes Forum » You heard it WHERE???? first?... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Weatherlawyer... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Boulder, CO USA – Seismologists have found a new way to piece together
the history of hurricanes in the North Atlantic - by looking back
through records of the planet's seismic noise.
It's an [Ahem!] entirely new way to tap into the rich trove of seismic
records and the strategy might help establish a link between global
warming and the frequency or intensity of hurricanes.
"Looking for something like hurricane records in seismology doesn't
occur to anybody," said Carl Ebeling of Northwestern University in
Evanston.
Looking for people who identify hurricanes with seismology doesn't
occur to Carl Ebeling of Northwestern University in Evanston.
"It's a strange and wondrous combination."
[It's that all right but you ain't got started yet kiddo.]
The research is attempting to address a long-standing debate about
whether the warming of sea-surface waters as a result of climate
change is producing more frequent or more powerful hurricanes in the
North Atlantic. It's a tough question to answer. [Oh good grief!!]
Before satellite observations began in the 1960s, weather monitoring
was spotty. Ships, planes, and land-based monitoring stations probably
missed some hurricanes, which tend to last for about a week or so,
Ebeling said. This type of uncertainty poses a problem for scientists,
who can’t identify trends until they know what the actual numbers
were.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/archive.php?cat_id=20&m=10&y=2009
What really annoys me about these people is their indiscriminate use
of commas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weatherlawyer... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 3 Nov, 15:51, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Boulder, CO USA – Seismologists have found a new way to piece together
the history of hurricanes in the North Atlantic - by looking back
through records of the planet's seismic noise.
It's an [Ahem!] entirely new way to tap into the rich trove of seismic
records and the strategy might help establish a link between global
warming and the frequency or intensity of hurricanes.
"Looking for something like hurricane records in seismology doesn't
occur to anybody," said Carl Ebeling of Northwestern University in
Evanston.
Looking for people who identify hurricanes with seismology doesn't
occur to Carl Ebeling of Northwestern University in Evanston.
"It's a strange and wondrous combination."
[It's that all right but you ain't got started yet kiddo.]
The research is attempting to address a long-standing debate about
whether the warming of sea-surface waters as a result of climate
change is producing more frequent or more powerful hurricanes in the
North Atlantic. It's a tough question to answer. [Oh good grief!!]
Before satellite observations began in the 1960s, weather monitoring
was spotty. Ships, planes, and land-based monitoring stations probably
missed some hurricanes, which tend to last for about a week or so,
Ebeling said. This type of uncertainty poses a problem for scientists,
who can’t identify trends until they know what the actual numbers
were.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/archive.php?cat_id=20&m=10&....
What really annoys me about these people is their indiscriminate use
of commas.
[/quote]
I tried to contact the researcher but couldn't get through. Oh! Some
spam trap. Still, what's a few decades in geo physics eh? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weatherlawyer... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 12 Nov, 13:28, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 3 Nov, 15:51, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Boulder, CO USA – Seismologists have found a new way to piece together
the history of hurricanes in the North Atlantic - by looking back
through records of the planet's seismic noise.
It's an [Ahem!] entirely new way to tap into the rich trove of seismic
records and the strategy might help establish a link between global
warming and the frequency or intensity of hurricanes.
"Looking for something like hurricane records in seismology doesn't
occur to anybody," said Carl Ebeling of Northwestern University in
Evanston.
Looking for people who identify hurricanes with seismology doesn't
occur to Carl Ebeling of Northwestern University in Evanston.
"It's a strange and wondrous combination."
[It's that all right but you ain't got started yet kiddo.]
The research is attempting to address a long-standing debate about
whether the warming of sea-surface waters as a result of climate
change is producing more frequent or more powerful hurricanes in the
North Atlantic. It's a tough question to answer. [Oh good grief!!]
Before satellite observations began in the 1960s, weather monitoring
was spotty. Ships, planes, and land-based monitoring stations probably
missed some hurricanes, which tend to last for about a week or so,
Ebeling said. This type of uncertainty poses a problem for scientists,
who can’t identify trends until they know what the actual numbers
were.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/archive.php?cat_id=20&m=10&...
What really annoys me about these people is their indiscriminate use
of commas.
I tried to contact the researcher but couldn't get through. Oh! Some
spam trap. Still, what's a few decades in geo physics eh?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Shoot these lads are on the ball.
Pity its the wrong ball park:
EVANSTON, Ill. --- When small earthquakes shake the central U.S.,
citizens often fear the rumbles are signs a big earthquake is coming.
Fortunately, new research instead shows that most of these earthquakes
are aftershocks of big earthquakes (magnitude 7) in the New Madrid
seismic zone that struck the Midwest almost 200 years ago.
The study, conducted by researchers from Northwestern University and
the University of Missouri-Columbia, will be published in the Nov. 5
issue of the journal Nature.
"This sounds strange at first," said the study's lead author, Seth
Stein, the William Deering Professor of Geological Sciences in the
Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences at Northwestern. "On the San
Andreas fault in California, aftershocks only continue for about 10
years. But in the middle of a continent, they go on much longer."
There is a good reason, explains co-investigator Mian Liu, professor
of geological sciences at Missouri. "Aftershocks happen after a big
earthquake because the movement on the fault changed the forces in the
earth that act on the fault itself and nearby. Aftershocks go on until
the fault recovers, which takes much longer in the middle of a
continent."
The difference, Stein explains, is that the two sides of the San
Andreas fault move past each other at a speed of about one and a half
inches in a year -- which is fast on a geologic time scale. This
motion "reloads" the fault by swamping the small changes caused by the
last big earthquake, so aftershocks are suppressed after about 10
years. The New Madrid faults, however, move more than 100 times more
slowly, so it takes hundreds of years to swamp the effects of a big
earthquake.
"A number of us had suspected this," Liu said, "because many of the
earthquakes we see today in the Midwest have patterns that look like
aftershocks. They happen on the faults we think caused the big
earthquakes in 1811 and 1812, and they've been getting smaller with
time."
To test this idea, Stein and Liu used results from lab experiments on
how faults in rocks work to predict that aftershocks would extend much
longer on slower moving faults. They then looked at data from faults
around the world and found the expected pattern. For example,
aftershocks continue today from the magnitude 7.2 Hebgen Lake
earthquake that shook Montana, Idaho and Wyoming 50 years ago.
"This makes sense because the Hebgen Lake fault moves faster than the
New Madrid faults but slower than the San Andreas," Stein noted. "The
observations and theory came together the way we like but don't always
get."
Aftershocks go on for long times in other places inside continents,
Stein said. It even looks like we see small earthquakes today in the
area along Canada's Saint Lawrence valley where a large earthquake
occurred in 1663.
The new results will help investigators in both understanding
earthquakes in continents and trying to assess earthquake hazards
there. "Until now," Liu observed, "we've mostly tried to tell where
large earthquakes will happen by looking at where small ones do."
That's why many scientists were surprised by the disastrous May 2008
magnitude 7.9 earthquake in Sichuan, China -- a place where there
hadn't been many earthquakes in the past few hundred years.
"Predicting big quakes based on small quakes is like the ‘Whack-a-
mole' game -- you wait for the mole to come up where it went down,"
Stein said. "But we now know the big earthquakes can pop up somewhere
else. Instead of just focusing on where small earthquakes happen, we
need to use methods like GPS satellites and computer modeling to look
for places where the earth is storing up energy for a large future
earthquake. We don't see that in the Midwest today, but we want to
keep looking."
The Nature paper is titled "Long Aftershock Sequences within
Continents and Implications for Earthquake Hazard Assessment."
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2009/11/quakes.html
http://dradis.ur.northwestern.edu/multimedia/audio/commentary/2009/11/stein..mp3
Inside a continent (as opposed to near the shelf) there is a limit to
what sort of patterns weather can make. And when the conditions are
"perfect" for making waves in the right directions they are going to
be the same conditions that occurred before are they not?
Sooo..... -although they are off bravely on the weather front, it
isn't going to be a brand new front until good old Weatherlawyer gets
upsert about the dalliance once again and starts throwing furniture at
the windows like in the good old days.
Ah well..
I went to a lecture on disaster mitigation based on volcanoes but
intended for a wider scope as you'd have to to drip feed English
drips. (Stafford Uni this time.) One item of emergency equiptment:
humungous amounts of gas masks without the innards, tickled us.
Another one to the same place east Africa in a lahar that killed 2000
people not told to walk a few miles to the edge of the valley;
thousands of frozen chickens.
I can remember Pearl Harbour.
Best thing that could happen to the US army airforce, that was;
IMNVHO.
General Short had the pilots on holiday and the planes piled up for
bonfire, unfueled and unarmed so no one would get hurt as he saved all
those brave pilots from getting shot down by cowboys on the New
Orleans...
Makes you think how lucky we were not having an idiot like Churchill
in power until it was too late to try to be reasonable. Hugh Dowding
wouldn't have stood a chance against fools like Trenchard.
Still he managed to slip in a Montgomery despite all the carefull
planning, as he gaily gave the Germans the North Atlantic. And nearly
Malta and thus Egypt too.
But that's a long story never told when it might have made sense to
tell it.
Perhaps god is doing the world a favour hiding me in pits of dense
darkness. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| datakoll... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| datakoll... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
how did you go from EO's home page to 'Media Alert' ??
Seismic noise derives its energy from the atmosphere and then gets
transmitted through the oceans into the solid earth, where it travels
as waves.
derives ? air rubs the ground ?
The Madrid recovery shocks analysis is petrography ? How, to, when
shocks are cyclical over short periods with earth's revolutions before
the sun and from seasonal tilt ? Incroyable. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weatherlawyer... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 12 Nov, 15:51, datakoll <datak... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]how did you go from EO's home page to 'Media Alert' ??
[/quote]
Kookery.
[quote]Seismic noise derives its energy from the atmosphere and then gets
transmitted through the oceans into the solid earth, where it travels
as waves.
derives ? air rubs the ground ?
[/quote]
You wish to tell me where seismic noisecomes from?
In the incidence on spec, not having looked up the material again, I
imagine they are talking aboutthe sounds created in the atmosphere and
becoming attached to the rest of our environment.
This is a by-product of the behaviour of sound.
As for my beliefs, I believe I have established quite a precedent for
not explaining the obvious. Not to people as abusive as you, at least.
[quote]Incroyable.
[/quote]
You may wish to persevere on theories not fully established since the
1950's, no matter how fully assimilated into academic circles but I am
not one for such brain-washing.
If it sounds logical and remains posible -despite taking any difficult
steps away, then the chances are it is in with a chance. It is
ceratainly a far more negotiable supposition to suppose that sounds
cause results that are caused or arrive with sounds.
All seismic events are closely related to earthquakes. Od course the
same can not be said for seismic events on other planets.
(Even you should realise that.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| datakoll... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Earth Observatory received here but not in the form 'Media Alert.' I
can't find that in EO so I asked ....
I assume the great weight(s) and different pressures of vast
atmospheric 'cells' push down on tectonic plates- now specified as
floating - and against each other's air boundries, creating very very
low frequency noise. But that's not the horse's mouth.
I have my own copy of Minch today. Am finishing off Google Earth to
Minch for a trip down Baja.
The Solstice approachs, buckle up.
Take a look at NYT: search for Mayan on the latest calendar reports:
comments are upscale. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Belba Grubb... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I was in Incroyable on a cruise once, somewhere between St. Croix and
Tortuga. Lovely place, but terribly overpriced. Admission to the
kraken tank is free, but you have to pay to get out: it's the biggest
money-earner on the island.
Anyway, nuts don't make presentation at GSA meetings, nor do they work
in Earth and Planetary Sciences at prestigious colleges, AFAIK. The
general idea, therefore, has to be taken seriously. And I do believe
meteorology and seismology/geology can be a "strange and wondrous
combination." Don't sweat the "strange"; you have to pass through it
on the way to wonder.
Wish I could have heard (and had the technical expertise to completely
understand) the presentation. Some immediate question that pop up
are:
1) Just specifically how do they define and quantify "seismic noise"
and how is it generated (sorry, but when one talks about the
atmosphere generating a noise, all I can think of is all a half-
century's worth of weather balloons trapped just below the ozone
layers, squeaking forlornly against each other, crying to be allowed
out to play in the stars -- seriously, though, these scientists seem
be talking about an energy transfer of some sort, which is certainly
possible);
2) Granting the existence of "seismic noise," and considering its
small size, how do they separate the main signal from anything that
might be generated by plain old lightning, thunderstorms, etc.; and
then how do they localize that "noise" generated in the North Atlantic
(note: their abstract at http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2009AM/finalprogram/abstract_161903.htm
mentions a "discrimination algorithm");
3) Granting an ability to localize it, how do they distinguish between
such "noise" made by tropical cyclones (whether hurricanes [unlikely],
tropical storms, or tropical depressions) and extratropical cyclones
and that made by the nasty old-fashioned low-pressure systems that
region is notorious for?
4) The news release says they will be studying "decades" of
information; well, if they're not going back any further, and since
this time period corresponds with just the upper end of mankind's
ability to circumnavigate the globe, what does this "seismic noise"
approach bring to the table that isn't already there from on-scene
observers (from the write-up, it appears they're looking to get some
kind of verifiable numbers, which is always a good quest), and are
they working with HURDAT? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HURDAT and
"Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future":
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/rpibook-final04.pdf ).
Some interesting links I found on a quick search:
Hurricane Season and Microseisms: http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~ruff/MicroSeism/microseism.html
(links to articles don't seem to work)
An Exercise Using Hurricane Microseisms: http://quake.eas.gatech.edu/Exercises/Hurricanes.htm
Correlation measurements of Atmospheric Pressure Variations and
Seismicity during Hurricane Dennis:
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0507137
(nothing like having the storm go right over your equipment!)
A missing link: corroboration that this baby ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b21g-5YBLs
), as it hit Long Island in 1938, triggered seismographs in Sitka,
Alaska. Images of the seismograms in NY and in Alaska would be
terrific, too. Anybody know of any that are online and accessible to
the public? The Alaska instrument likely was one made at HVO and
delivered to Sitka in 1927, per this: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/observatory/hvo_history_seism.html
NHC's "Deadliest, Costliest, Most Intense Hurricanes" page:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/dcmi.shtml
(The Atlantic listing goes back to at least 1609, and a storm that
inspired Shakespeare's "The Tempest," which was first performed two
years later.)
Barb
---------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weatherlawyer... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 21, 4:42 pm, Belba Grubb <trungsister... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]
Wish I could have heard (and had the technical expertise to completely
understand) the presentation. Some immediate question that pop up
are:
1) Just specifically how do they define and quantify "seismic noise"
and how is it generated (sorry, but when one talks about the
atmosphere generating a noise, all I can think of is all a half-
century's worth of weather balloons trapped just below the ozone
layers, squeaking forlornly against each other, crying to be allowed
out to play in the stars -- seriously, though, these scientists seem
be talking about an energy transfer of some sort, which is certainly
possible);
[/quote]
Every local station has to take account of thunderstorms and heavy
traffic or quarrying. Anything that will register as a asizable tremor
but only locally. I imagine these would be the ones the team would be
looking for.
[quote]2) Granting the existence of "seismic noise," and considering its
small size, how do they separate the main signal from anything that
might be generated by plain old lightning, thunderstorms, etc.; and
then how do they localize that "noise" generated in the North Atlantic
(note: their abstract at
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2009AM/finalprogram/abstract_161903.htm
mentions a "discrimination algorithm")
[/quote]
Not having read anything the boy wonder has written and presuming you
have cut it for good reason I am guessing that the algorithm refers
to the cleaning up of local events that will only appear on one or two
meters. More distant records will not have them.
[quote]3) Granting an ability to localize it, how do they distinguish between
such "noise" made by tropical cyclones (whether hurricanes [unlikely],
tropical storms, or tropical depressions) and extratropical cyclones
and that made by the nasty old-fashioned low-pressure systems that
region is notorious for?
[/quote]
Power.
I read a chart online once that put all natural phenomena in a list of
magnitudes.
Lightning strikes were a fraction the pwoer of a tornado were a
fraction of the pwer of a whatever...
Quite simple really. I believe from my own research that quakes and
cyclones match each other pretty well but of course have to assume
they too are local events. Though of course if they were loud enough
they would appear in other recording stations.
Hurricanes are not measured in the same way. Some quake
classifications for magnitude include the length of time the event
took place over. That criterion doen't ever reach the desks of
meteorology.
They are only interested in dates and hours when it comes to issuing
warnings.
[quote]4) The news release says they will be studying "decades" of
information; well, if they're not going back any further and since
this time period corresponds with just the upper end of mankind's
ability to circumnavigate the globe, what does this "seismic noise"
approach bring to the table that isn't already there from on-scene
observers (from the write-up, it appears they're looking to get some
kind of verifiable numbers, which is always a good quest), and are
they working with HURDAT? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HURDAT and
"Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future"
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/rpibook-final04.pdf).
[/quote]
They are playing the right game but they are in the wrong ball park.
There is no need for all the back numbers they only need to hit the
upcoming games to rectify their approach.
All they need to see is when ansd where the next storms go ashore and
measure directly from them. There is plenty to keep them going and
they can moderate their approaches to suit what they want to examine
next.
[quote]Some interesting links I found on a quick search:
Hurricane Season and Microseisms:
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~ruff/MicroSeism/microseism.html
(links to articles don't seem to work)
An Exercise Using Hurricane Microseisms:
http://quake.eas.gatech.edu/Exercises/Hurricanes.htm
Correlation measurements of Atmospheric Pressure Variations and
Seismicity during Hurricane Dennis:
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0507137
(nothing like having the storm go right over your equipment!)
A missing link: corroboration that this baby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b21g-5YBLs
), as it hit Long Island in 1938, triggered seismographs in Sitka,
Alaska. Images of the seismograms in NY and in Alaska would be
terrific, too. Anybody know of any that are online and accessible to
the public? The Alaska instrument likely was one made at HVO and
delivered to Sitka in 1927, per this:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/observatory/hvo_history_seism.html
NHC's "Deadliest, Costliest, Most Intense Hurricanes" page:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/dcmi.shtml
(The Atlantic listing goes back to at least 1609, and a storm that
inspired Shakespeare's "The Tempest," which was first performed two
years later.)
[/quote]
Looking back on the season before looking back through the crack in
the door. The storm was outrageous the era contagious they glowed with
witchfinders. Eased in time to reveal only what the witness wants to
reveal not to burn at the stake. Not glow like a fiery heretic.
They say why, why don't we check all the data and wake up new
ideasville?
I say why?
Why don't you do your job when you can where you can?
Because that's not the way the world works Barby, not the way it all
goes baby.
I just love that Paul Simon. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:41 am
|
|