Actually, they didn't need to use a handful instruments spread across the continent. Oklahoma has had its own seismographic instrument network since the mid 1970's. And a significant rise in the number of magnitude 3 and higher has been show to occur in and around Oklahoma City, not exactly the middle of nowhere. Since the activation of Oklahoma's network of instruments well before the period, pinpointing the magnitude and location of earthquakes has no dependency on damage reports or reports of people who felt the quakes. And it didn't depend on the media either. As stated, seismology had a century of development, and 3.0 and higher magnitude events were easy to detect and locate during the 80's, especially since the state operated their own network of seismology instruments. After all, we're talking about the 1980's, not the 1880's.

 

The state of Oklahoma has a lot of identified fault lines according to the OGS. The pdf I uploaded has quite the number of faults in Oklahoma.

What is the historical record with respect to OK's monitoring network ... especially the date the reporting stations were placed "in service."

I understand why the NSSC, National Severe Storm Center, is in OK ... you go where the tornados are "likely" to happen.

I understand why those who study "lightning" go to FL, as it has the highest isokeraunic level in the U.S.

I understand why those who study earthquakes are "likely" to go to the west coast.

The political types that fund these adventures are not going to fund exploration that is not known to have the "events" they are funding.

Here is a google earth view of OK. OKC, at 1255 feet above sea level, is about 3500 ft lower in elevation from the westernmost county. The area is sparsely populated. The congressman that represented where I lived, in the westernmost part of the state, his district dipped into OKC and to visit my area, it was a 325 mile drive. 20 years ago, there were 45 people living in the western OK town of Kenton. There were five town between Boise City OK and Amarillo Tx, a distance of 125 miles, at approximately 20 mile increments.

I agree with TCM, if no one reports an earthquake, and it's not detected, future scientists won't know it happened. That could screw up any and all calculations.

 

I guess that's why the National Earthquake Information Center is in Golden, Co.

Oklahoma City is the 27th most populous city in the Country.

 

I guess that's why the National Earthquake Information Center is in Golden, Co.

Oklahoma City is the 27th most populous city in the Country.

A far bigger reason for the National Earthquake Information Center being in Golden, Co is that it is located on the Colorado School of Mines campus and has had tight ties to the CSM Geology and Geophysics departments since its inception.

 

And the largest monitoring station in the nation is in Billings, MT.

 

And the largest monitoring station in the nation is in Billings, MT.

Yeah. So?

Location of monitoring stations reflects lots of things, many of them technical and many of them political.

 

So then, that would be true for centers for all types of activity. So then no conclusions can be drawn from the location of andy of these places.

 

So then, that would be true for centers for all types of activity. So then no conclusions can be drawn from the location of andy of these places.

I would say that, in general, that is true. That's particularly the case for their headquarters since that is usually much more driven by bureaucratic, political, and logistical considerations than technical. If you are talking about technical centers, then technical considerations play a bigger role, but if there is too much conflict you just have the headquarters be in the place where the non-technical factors dictate and then have a "field office" or some such where the technical factors dictate.

That's NOT to say that the location of any given center might not reflect the work that that center does, but I would expect in most cases it to still be more reflective of being near suitable resources (such as industry/university support) more so than being close to the activity itself. If your choice is to make data collection easy but data analysis difficult and expensive versus the other way around, the simple fact is that data collection is a very short-term process that can be easily remoted in most situations but data analysis (and all the other functions that follow from that) require much more infrastructure and are much more involved. So you establish field offices or remote monitoring sites or have teams go collect data periodically but you position your main activities in a location where you have access to the right kind of people in a place where those people want to live.

Of course, with today's communication and mobility, this is less of an issue. When I was an undergrad at CSM in the 80s one of the perks of the NEIC being on campus was that they could simply walk over to the Geophysics Departments seismograph readouts and collect data, something that would have been much more difficult to do if they had been located even a few miles up the road (which is one of the reasons why they moved from CU-Boulder to CSM after only a year or so). Today that's largely a non-consideration as they would just establish a suitable network connection.

 

The bottom line is that all across the country, data is collected on weather, seismology and a myriad of other natural phenomenon because that information is helpful to the local population. Construction methods depend on anticipated local conditions (for example) as well as transportation, goods and services, government, etc. So I wouldn't make any conclusions based on the type and nature of the data of natural and human affected conditions being collected. A cursory search turned up the fact that many states have had seismographic networks for decades, including many which have not been known as active areas.

After all, if what's been written here is true, and previous data has only been collected via word of mouth, then local populations are considerably in need of installing and operating scientifically instrumented stations. Else they never know with any accuracy what to prepare for.

 

After all, if what's been written here is true, and previous data has only been collected via word of mouth, then local populations are considerably in need of installing and operating scientifically instrumented stations. Else they never know with any accuracy what to prepare for.

The government isn't here to "help" you prepare. The police can't protect you. Every agency you think that is to "help" are more reactionary to things than proactive to prevent things.

Everything cost money. If they "federalize" it, there is a better chance to get it done, only if the "local" critters are in powerful positions. Senator Byrd use to state that "as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, it was his responsibility to determine where the majority of the funding goes." There are a lot of federal jobs in WV. Lots of things named for Senator Byrd. He brought home the bacon.

Geopolitics does come into play more than we think about. I once attended some training and Geopolitics was in the top five of considerations when finding places to put a unit.

Remember the space program? It was sole sourced and the company tracked every expenditure by congressional district to demonstrate to the critters that their constituents was receiving the fruits of the federal dollars in the space program. I'm sure they created a department just to do that tracking.

Politics is a dirty word around here, however, politics plays an important part in everything, whether we like it or not.

I was told about 20 years ago, that 60 percent of the ODOT budget was used to pay salaries. That left 40 percent to maintain all the roads the state was responsible to maintain.

My last unit, in western Oklahoma, was originally designed to be in Springfield, CO. It could have been the acquisition of land -v- using federal land as the driving force to move locations or it could have been powerful political allies in the halls of the Legislative branch. Optimal or Second Best?

 

The government isn't here to "help" you prepare. The police can't protect you. Every agency you think that is to "help" are more reactionary to things than proactive to prevent things.

So the tornado early warning system we have in Alabama is there only to serve political concerns, and not to save lives? Even though it saves lives!? It makes no sense to say there was a purpose for having the instrumentation installed, that it was dictated by the high number of potential active faults, then turn right around and claim it's never about anything other than politics. Man, pick a side.

 

I find it very annoying that the Fracking thread keeps getting shifted to earthquakes.

 

I see it as sort of relevant but if someone keeps trolling things regarding the whys of how things get implemented in this country I will have the mods clean it up a bit.
Again.

If those people are so fixated on that aspect of fracking technology and medias perceived correlations of what affects what Vs reality they can start their own threads about it.

 

So the tornado early warning system we have in Alabama is there only to serve political concerns, and not to save lives? Even though it saves lives!?

Localized systems like that are most often funded partially or fully through government grants and their installation and upkeep is largely controlled by local powers not federal level powers.

It makes no sense to say there was a purpose for having the instrumentation installed, that it was dictated by the high number of potential active faults, then turn right around and claim it's never about anything other than politics. Man, pick a side.

Why should he? The largest part of discussing this sort of stuff fairley is the willingness to take a unbiased and unsided view of the everything that is in play relating to the subject.

I see his points as showing that there are always multiple aspects of every public and private large scale systems or such that has as much to do with local activity and phenomenon interests as it has to do with the political games certain people feel they have to play behind the scenes so they can get credit for someone else's research and work.

If people have to pick either a I'm for it or I'm against it or its all government and politics or it's not stance on a topic or subject in one of my threads they can leave.

 

Actually, much of the research, development, placement and operation is provided, or assistance it provided, by the NOAA and other federal agencies.

 

If people have to pick either a I'm for it or I'm against it or its all government and politics or it's not stance on a topic or subject in one of my threads they can leave.

Nobody said to be for or against it. The statement refers to the idea that either there is a real purpose for measuring and compiling data of natural phenomena or not. Does it provide a real benefit to people? Or does it only serve a political means? Or does to do both? I'm good either way, but just pick one and proceed.

 

Actually, much of the research, development, placement and operation is provided, or assistance it provided, by the NOAA and other federal agencies

Those federal agencies have no income.

They would not exist if not for the politicians funding them with the people's money. I want you to think about it during the next budget battle. Congress "complained" in 1970s that they could not get their job done by the 1 July start of the fiscal year, so in 1976 they had a transition quarter to change the start date to 1 Oct, so they would have plenty of time to DO THEIR JOB. How many continuing resolutions have we had since then? More than I care to think about.

Ever hear about the "donor" states with respect to the gasoline tax? You know the tax that supports the federal roads? Every state has U.S. roads and Interstates. The donor states send more gasoline tax to Washington then they get back to maintain the roads. Think about that the next time you hit a "bump" in the road designated as U.S. or IH. I'm sorry, there is NO SUCH THING as locked boxes when it comes to taxes. It all goes into the general funds to be dispensed at the will of the people's representatives.

Tip O'Neil was correct when he said "all politics is local."

Politics is higher than knee deep into everything.

How many tornados did it take before the early warning system was deployed to that area? All government is reacting to a stimulus.

 

But did it save lives?

 

So the tornado early warning system we have in Alabama is there only to serve political concerns, and not to save lives? Even though it saves lives!? It makes no sense to say there was a purpose for having the instrumentation installed, that it was dictated by the high number of potential active faults, then turn right around and claim it's never about anything other than politics. Man, pick a side.

Who said the instrumentation was only installed to serve political concerns or that it is only ever about politics?

 

Okay wrap it up or I will request that everything forward of post 296 pulled.

I think most people here know I have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to having to choose sides between politics and real technical/scientific practice.