| Users Online Now: 2,008 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,145,628 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,006,857 | Threads Today: 772 | Posts Today: 15,337 |
| 09:41 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,008 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,145,628 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,006,857 | Threads Today: 772 | Posts Today: 15,337 |
| 09:41 PM | ||
M 6.4 Southern California | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29862814  United States12/14/2012 11:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am on the coast, can see Catalina from window, better believe we felt it! Woke us up. First place I checked was GLP! Quoting: Doomamatrix Were you at the Catalina wine mixer this year? What the f%$k has wine got to do with earthquakes? stay on the god damn subject. You have a mangina! You have a mangina! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29862814 United States12/14/2012 11:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Odd. I was just thinking the same thing. I've never seen them proffer such an explanation on one particular "medium sized" quake before! It's as though USGS is trying to reassure everyone in So Cal that there's "nothing to worry about - the tone of the press release seems to imply "that it's just some little anomalous quake that means little or nothing" - although at 6.4 how "little & meaningless" it is certainly is subject to debate. Quoting: MarkinAZ As Shakespeare said "Me Thinks the lady doth protest too much!" I wonder what they REALLY know or suspect strongly that they're now trying to cover up? Something is going on and it's far more than just this one quake that USGS is trying so hard to "blow off" as though it is nothing. Any ideas? I've never seen this kind of explanation on the USGS site for a specific quake. Quoting: hapless moran A 6.4 a few years ago was considered a 7.4! Will you stop spreading that horseshit! No it wasn't. You are very ill-informed. A 6.4 years ago was a fucking 6.4. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29863925  Germany12/14/2012 11:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 2731277 United States12/14/2012 11:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29130142  Finland12/14/2012 11:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 22022484 United States12/14/2012 11:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am on the coast, can see Catalina from window, better believe we felt it! Woke us up. First place I checked was GLP! Quoting: Doomamatrix Were you at the Catalina wine mixer this year? What the f%$k has wine got to do with earthquakes? stay on the god damn subject. You have a mangina! You have a mangina!  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29863925 Germany12/14/2012 12:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 18656211 United States12/14/2012 12:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29014015 United States12/14/2012 12:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Odd. I was just thinking the same thing. I've never seen them proffer such an explanation on one particular "medium sized" quake before! It's as though USGS is trying to reassure everyone in So Cal that there's "nothing to worry about - the tone of the press release seems to imply "that it's just some little anomalous quake that means little or nothing" - although at 6.4 how "little & meaningless" it is certainly is subject to debate. Quoting: MarkinAZ As Shakespeare said "Me Thinks the lady doth protest too much!" I wonder what they REALLY know or suspect strongly that they're now trying to cover up? Something is going on and it's far more than just this one quake that USGS is trying so hard to "blow off" as though it is nothing. Any ideas? I've never seen this kind of explanation on the USGS site for a specific quake. Quoting: hapless moran A 6.4 a few years ago was considered a 7.4! Will you stop spreading that horseshit! No it wasn't. You are very ill-informed. A 6.4 years ago was a fucking 6.4. Thread: AS I THOUGHT,THE RICHTER SCALE WAS DOWNGRADED. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29866263 United States12/14/2012 12:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just means the first shaker was too deep to cause an actual fault rupture. The second one is closer to the surface. Quoting: MatangLawin I don't like this. There are no known fault lines in that area. I think this is a precursor quake. Be careful Californians and get your bug-out bags ready. as far as the mag 6+ - it was ONE quake. and 10-20 km is not deep, it is in fact very SHALLOW at between 12 to 6 miles underground. |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 29848241 Germany12/14/2012 12:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Odd. I was just thinking the same thing. I've never seen them proffer such an explanation on one particular "medium sized" quake before! It's as though USGS is trying to reassure everyone in So Cal that there's "nothing to worry about - the tone of the press release seems to imply "that it's just some little anomalous quake that means little or nothing" - although at 6.4 how "little & meaningless" it is certainly is subject to debate. Quoting: MarkinAZ As Shakespeare said "Me Thinks the lady doth protest too much!" I wonder what they REALLY know or suspect strongly that they're now trying to cover up? Something is going on and it's far more than just this one quake that USGS is trying so hard to "blow off" as though it is nothing. Any ideas? ... A 6.4 a few years ago was considered a 7.4! Will you stop spreading that horseshit! No it wasn't. You are very ill-informed. A 6.4 years ago was a fucking 6.4. Thread: AS I THOUGHT,THE RICHTER SCALE WAS DOWNGRADED. We're not even using the Richter scale anymore. We're using the moment magnitude scale, since we discovered that the Richter scale has a limit. If I remember this right, up to a magnitude of approximately 7.6 both the Richter scale and the MMS were identical and accurate, but very large quakes above that magnitude couldn't be classified correctly on the Richter scale. So we switched to the open-ended (and far more logical) moment magnitude scale. That the scale was downgraded is complete bullshit. If it was so, those extremely large quakes above M9.0 would have been above M10.0 which is impossible?! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29378280 United States12/14/2012 12:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just means the first shaker was too deep to cause an actual fault rupture. The second one is closer to the surface. Quoting: MatangLawin I don't like this. There are no known fault lines in that area. I think this is a precursor quake. Be careful Californians and get your bug-out bags ready. as far as the mag 6+ - it was ONE quake. and 10-20 km is not deep, it is in fact very SHALLOW at between 12 to 6 miles underground. TARDED!!!! YOU!!!! UTC 6 hours ago Northern California 1.4 10.5 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:57 UTC 6 hours ago Southern California 4.1 50.2 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:18 UTC 6 hours ago Off W. Coast Of Baja California 4.7 10.0 CSEM-EMSC Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:15 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 4.7 9.8 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:38:31 UTC 6 hours ago Utah 3.2 27.4 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:37:53 UTC 6 hours ago Utah 3.5 2.9 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:18 UTC 6 hours ago off the coast of California 6.1 11.1 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:02 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 6.3 11.3 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago Off W Coast of Baja, California. 6.3 10.0 GeoScience Australia Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago Off W. Coast Of Baja California 6.4 10.0 CSEM-EMSC Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 6.4 20.0 |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29866263 United States12/14/2012 12:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Odd. I was just thinking the same thing. I've never seen them proffer such an explanation on one particular "medium sized" quake before! It's as though USGS is trying to reassure everyone in So Cal that there's "nothing to worry about - the tone of the press release seems to imply "that it's just some little anomalous quake that means little or nothing" - although at 6.4 how "little & meaningless" it is certainly is subject to debate. Quoting: MarkinAZ As Shakespeare said "Me Thinks the lady doth protest too much!" I wonder what they REALLY know or suspect strongly that they're now trying to cover up? Something is going on and it's far more than just this one quake that USGS is trying so hard to "blow off" as though it is nothing. Any ideas? ... A 6.4 a few years ago was considered a 7.4! Will you stop spreading that horseshit! No it wasn't. You are very ill-informed. A 6.4 years ago was a fucking 6.4. Thread: AS I THOUGHT,THE RICHTER SCALE WAS DOWNGRADED. that is your source? a GLP thread linking to some nutjob? The richter scale has not been downgraded. a 6.4 today is the same as a 6.4 20 years, or 50 years ago. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29378280 United States12/14/2012 12:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to quakes.globalincidentmap.com] meh oops etc. i absolutely cannot believe how stupid people are on this forum sometimes. most of the time. ok, ALWAYS.... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29378280 United States12/14/2012 12:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | CRAP I HAVE A NEW LAPTOP AND DON'T HAVE MY EURO EQ LINKS ANYMORE.... also i have caps lock which is AMAZING, try it, it's like yelling only better. and goes well with brawndo. anyway can someone throw out the euro/mid east sesmo links? they are generally more accurate than usgs, even tho usgs has been starting to use them more... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29866263 United States12/14/2012 12:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just means the first shaker was too deep to cause an actual fault rupture. The second one is closer to the surface. Quoting: MatangLawin I don't like this. There are no known fault lines in that area. I think this is a precursor quake. Be careful Californians and get your bug-out bags ready. as far as the mag 6+ - it was ONE quake. and 10-20 km is not deep, it is in fact very SHALLOW at between 12 to 6 miles underground. TARDED!!!! YOU!!!! UTC 6 hours ago Northern California 1.4 10.5 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:57 UTC 6 hours ago Southern California 4.1 50.2 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:18 UTC 6 hours ago Off W. Coast Of Baja California 4.7 10.0 CSEM-EMSC Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:15 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 4.7 9.8 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:38:31 UTC 6 hours ago Utah 3.2 27.4 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:37:53 UTC 6 hours ago Utah 3.5 2.9 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:18 UTC 6 hours ago off the coast of California 6.1 11.1 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:02 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 6.3 11.3 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago Off W Coast of Baja, California. 6.3 10.0 GeoScience Australia Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago Off W. Coast Of Baja California 6.4 10.0 CSEM-EMSC Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 6.4 20.0 Go learn something about how quakes are reported. There are different monitoring stations - different equipment which reports electronically. Those are not 5 separate mag 6+ quakes, it is the same quake. |
Fedex12  User ID: 2016649  Argentina12/14/2012 12:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 29848241 Germany12/14/2012 12:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Small, shallow aftershock closer to the coast. M3.2 - 126km WSW of Rosarito, Mexico [link to earthquake.usgs.gov] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29378280 United States12/14/2012 12:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just means the first shaker was too deep to cause an actual fault rupture. The second one is closer to the surface. Quoting: MatangLawin I don't like this. There are no known fault lines in that area. I think this is a precursor quake. Be careful Californians and get your bug-out bags ready. as far as the mag 6+ - it was ONE quake. and 10-20 km is not deep, it is in fact very SHALLOW at between 12 to 6 miles underground. TARDED!!!! YOU!!!! UTC 6 hours ago Northern California 1.4 10.5 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:57 UTC 6 hours ago Southern California 4.1 50.2 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:18 UTC 6 hours ago Off W. Coast Of Baja California 4.7 10.0 CSEM-EMSC Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:50:15 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 4.7 9.8 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:38:31 UTC 6 hours ago Utah 3.2 27.4 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:37:53 UTC 6 hours ago Utah 3.5 2.9 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:18 UTC 6 hours ago off the coast of California 6.1 11.1 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:02 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 6.3 11.3 USGS Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago Off W Coast of Baja, California. 6.3 10.0 GeoScience Australia Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago Off W. Coast Of Baja California 6.4 10.0 CSEM-EMSC Feed Detail Friday December 14 2012, 10:36:01 UTC 6 hours ago off the west coast of Baja California 6.4 20.0 Go learn something about how quakes are reported. There are different monitoring stations - different equipment which reports electronically. Those are not 5 separate mag 6+ quakes, it is the same quake. you have no idea what you are talking about. so shut the fuck up, dumbass. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29378280 United States12/14/2012 12:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Small, shallow aftershock closer to the coast. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29848241 M3.2 - 126km WSW of Rosarito, Mexico [link to earthquake.usgs.gov] Friday December 14 2012, 17:40:11 UTC 3 minutes ago off the west coast of Baja California 3.2 7.5 USGS Feed |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 29848241 Germany12/14/2012 12:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Small, shallow aftershock closer to the coast. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29848241 M3.2 - 126km WSW of Rosarito, Mexico [link to earthquake.usgs.gov] Aaaaand it already disappeared off the map. Come on, USGS, I've watched the seismograph deflect.  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 21725104  Canada12/14/2012 01:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Only the Media callss aftershocks, aftershocks. They the USGS and a earthquake panel last year hav stated that aftershocks are Erathquakes that come after. So for the sake of argument can everybody call them what they are. Earthquakes are all earthquakes. Before. During nad afterwards. There's no such thing as an aftershock anymore. California has had 7 earthquakes all of a magnitude 5.5 or better. Watch that Salton Sea. One quake was centered very close. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25214501 United States12/14/2012 01:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29378280 United States12/14/2012 01:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Only the Media callss aftershocks, aftershocks. They the USGS and a earthquake panel last year hav stated that aftershocks are Erathquakes that come after. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21725104 So for the sake of argument can everybody call them what they are. Earthquakes are all earthquakes. Before. During nad afterwards. There's no such thing as an aftershock anymore. California has had 7 earthquakes all of a magnitude 5.5 or better. Watch that Salton Sea. One quake was centered very close. an aftershock happens at the same epicenter. and yeah i posted some highly intelligent amazing shit earlier about salton and lava fields but did anyone notice my brilliance? hardly.  |
| optimum judgment User ID: 24021617  United Kingdom12/14/2012 07:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Only the Media callss aftershocks, aftershocks. They the USGS and a earthquake panel last year hav stated that aftershocks are Erathquakes that come after. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21725104 So for the sake of argument can everybody call them what they are. Earthquakes are all earthquakes. Before. During nad afterwards. There's no such thing as an aftershock anymore. California has had 7 earthquakes all of a magnitude 5.5 or better. Watch that Salton Sea. One quake was centered very close. an aftershock happens at the same epicenter. and yeah i posted some highly intelligent amazing shit earlier about salton and lava fields but did anyone notice my brilliance? hardly. Have a blue peter badge//  |
| FlashMob User ID: 12260220 United States12/15/2012 11:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Odd. I was just thinking the same thing. I've never seen them proffer such an explanation on one particular "medium sized" quake before! It's as though USGS is trying to reassure everyone in So Cal that there's "nothing to worry about - the tone of the press release seems to imply "that it's just some little anomalous quake that means little or nothing" - although at 6.4 how "little & meaningless" it is certainly is subject to debate. Quoting: MarkinAZ As Shakespeare said "Me Thinks the lady doth protest too much!" I wonder what they REALLY know or suspect strongly that they're now trying to cover up? Something is going on and it's far more than just this one quake that USGS is trying so hard to "blow off" as though it is nothing. Any ideas? ... A 6.4 a few years ago was considered a 7.4! Will you stop spreading that horseshit! No it wasn't. You are very ill-informed. A 6.4 years ago was a fucking 6.4. Thread: AS I THOUGHT,THE RICHTER SCALE WAS DOWNGRADED. You said a few YEARS not DECADES dick head You may fool me once. But twice is unlikely |
