MOD NOTE: Per the TS's request in the Gone Fracking thread, these posts have been split off into their own thread.

#12 NOTE: I didn't really start this thread, I just happen to be where the mods split it from a thread from tcmtech. The purpose is to get the earthquake conversation out of the fracking conversation. Oddly, I end up seeming to sponsor the content I objected to.
Oh well. No problem. I am cool enough to cope with that.

The picture of the tumbleweed looks like it was US 64 in the panhandle of Oklahoma between Boise City and Guymon.

The picture of the tumbleweed reminds me of the movie, "Fargo", except it has power poles instead of a low, wire fence. I was thinking, "How do you tell the difference?" then I realized the tumbleweed must have betrayed the location.

Anyway, thanks to @WBahn and @tcmtech for descriptions of earthquake measurements and perception.
Thanks to @GopherT for bringing a sense of proportions that was sorely missing yesterday.

ps, The best sonic boom I have felt included a "thump" which registered in my chest.

 

The picture of the tumbleweed reminds me of the movie, "Fargo", except it has power poles instead of a low, wire fence. I was thinking, "How do you tell the difference?" then I realized the tumbleweed must have betrayed the location.

Anyway, thanks to @WBahn and @tcmtech for descriptions of earthquake measurements and perception.
Thanks to @GopherT for bringing a sense of proportions that was sorely missing yesterday.

ps, The best sonic boom I have felt included a "thump" which registered in my chest.

Funny you mention Fargo. I've lived in North Dakota (in Grand forks, just north of Fargo) and, as I was posting the tumbleweed photo, I was thinking of a joke that was often told about North Dakota - and could apply to most of the Great Planes States - the State Tree is a telephone pole.

 

I've lived in North Dakota

Did you turn the lights off when you left?

(other old joke about North Dakota.)

 

Did you turn the light off when you left?

(other old joke about North Dakota.)

No kidding. When I was there 25 years ago, the state population had been shrinking and they lost 1% in each of the previous 5 years. They were talking about the brain drain and a significant number (50% if I remember) of college graduates were leaving the state. Politicians were talking about defunding the schools to keep people in the state.

Now, they cannot build houses and pipelines fast enough in the western part of the state.

 

Politicians were talking about defunding the schools to keep people in the state.

That explains a lot about the present condition of our educational system.

 

That explains a lot about the present condition of our educational system.

I left when that chatter started. Lower population, fewer taxpayers, - school districts were deciding between cuts and higher taxes. Then the rumors of cutting state funding and raising tuition at University of North Dakota and NDSU to lower enrollment started. They were calling the population loss, "the brain drain" as college graduates left at much higher rates than anyone else. I don't know if it was just a rumor or if anything ever happened. I never looked back or asked anyone.

 

They were calling the population loss, "the brain drain" as college graduates left at much higher rates than anyone else.

There is good evidence that educated people do not stay in boring places. In fact, it was a determining factor in a case brought before the Second District Court of Appeals.

"The city responded that it removed Jordan from consideration (to be hired as a police officer) because he scored a 33 on the WPT, and that to prevent frequent job turnover caused by hiring overqualified applicants the city only interviewed candidates who scored between 20 and 27."

http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html

 

Here's more senses of proportions. The first picture shows earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 and greater in OK for a 9 year period from 1980 - 1989. The second picture is the same data for the single year of 2014.

 

Getting back to my original comment about the increased risk of earthquakes in Oklahoma, there is concern in the scientific community (seismology and geophysics) that a moderate to large earthquake will eventually occur in the Oklahoma City area.

The "tempo" (the rate of activity) of smaller events in Oklahoma now exceeds many regions the "Ring Of Fire" (including California) and the increase in activity is quite appalling. From this, it's now a sure bet that a severe earthquake will occur in that region.

Furthermore, the building codes in that part of the U.S. have no provision for even moderately large earthquakes (low to mid 6s)*** and the damage from a moderate size event will be quite severe. In 1811 and 1812, there were two large earthquakes in the New Madrid, Missouri area and the movement was noticed at extreme distances like New York and Maine.

With the good seismic transmission characteristics of the Plains States, the ground motion at large distances will be severe. Without adequate codes, many buildings in the Oklahoma City area will probably come down or be damaged beyond repair. That includes most of the newer high rises and low rise commercial/residential development.

It's gonna be a classic "Country Music" song "We're In A World Of Hurt". Furthermore, if the earthquakes are determined to be man-made (due to fracking and wastewater injection), the oil companies are gonna be singing that song too.

***All of the severely damaging earthquakes in California over the past 40 years were actually less than 7.0. Furthermore, the potential for damage is determined by ground acceleration (in percent of "G") and displacement. A 6.6 can produce over 1 G and 4 to 5 feet displacement. Imagine the forces on a 3000 ton office or apartment building subjected to that kind of movement .

 

Here's more senses of proportions. The first picture shows earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 and greater in OK for a 9 year period from 1980 - 1989. The second picture is the same data for the single year of 2014.

THAT is a serious contribution. It deserves more than a simple, "like" click. I salute you.

 

from the USGS.

Could the detection equipment be improving and more being deployed since the pre-2009 days causing the "reported" numbers being higher?





There were a rash of earthquakes last year in Irving Texas. Some blamed fracking. It was later reveals there was a previously undetected fault line. Some will say there is erosion of the "earth" covering the fault line caused by the pressure injected water used in fracking.

Fracking may not be the answer to all the questions.

There is a higher correlation of earthquakes on fault lines as opposed to those occurring further inland on intraplate fault lines.

For a comparison, there is a higher correlation for getting a computer virus from the internet sources and lower for getting one from an intranet sources.

New Madrid Fault line is probably the most famous intraplate fault line in the U.S.

The Oklahoma Maps are interesting. Care to share the source?

http://newsok.com/article/4983503 article about OK earthquakes not being new.

Of course if I viewed everything from a generational prospective, then Nothing occurred before May of 1952. I would be wrong of course.

 

Could the detection equipment be improving and more being deployed since the pre-2009 days causing the "reported" numbers being higher?

From what I am finding online that has a huge amount to do with it. the earliest seismic detection network was built in the mid 1990's and it wasn't until around 2005 and later that the network started to expand out into areas that were not considered highly active zones like California.

So given that obviously as more detectors went in in the midwest more small previously undetectable earthquakes became detectable and from there further instrumentation around the newly discovered more active than thought areas started going in to get better readings.

Odds are the Oklahoma regional activity was always there but until more and higher sensitivity detectors were installed in the region we just couldn't see them.

Do a search for the Advanced National Seismic System if you want more info. There's lots to read about.

 

It's unlikely that advances in seismographic instrumentation and wider deployment could account for the dramatic rise in earthquakes in OK. In the 1980's there would have been a substantial deployment of seismographic insruments in and near every motropolitan area, such as Oklahoma City. Given the increase in activity in or near the city of decently large events (3.0 and larger), I don't believe more instruments means more detection. By the 1980's seimographic instruments had over a centruy of development and refinement, and I'm sure were quite capable of detecting these larger events.

Also the numbers are still rising even though advanced instruments have been in place for years. In 2013, there were 109 recorded earthquakes of 3.0 or higher, but in 2014, there were 585. So far this year, there have been almost as many as all of 2014. I don't believe the instrumentation has advanced that much is less than two year, or that it was ever so bad that it missed hundreds of larger events.

Given all that, plus the fact that other regions aren't seeing such a dramatic rise in earthquakes due to advancemnt in technology, I'd say this is a non-factor.

 

I take it you did not read much into the ANSS network implementation and development.

Initial authorization and planning for the ANSS started around 1997.
Around 2000 it went online with 43 sensors total.
By 2008 they had 805 sensors on the network.
As of 2011 they had 2142 sensors online.
AS of today 2015 they have over 7000 sensors on line.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/anss/milestones.php

In the 1980's there would have been a substantial deployment of seismographic insruments in and near every motropolitan area, such as Oklahoma City. Given the increase in activity in or near the city of decently large events (3.0 and larger), I don't believe more instruments means more detection. By the 1980's seimographic instruments had over a centruy of development and refinement, and I'm sure were quite capable of detecting these larger events.

To me that makes about as much sense as saying telescopes have been around for centuries so the fact that all all of a sudden we are now finding stars with planets and even ones in the habitable zone has nothing to do with the recent and substantial improvements and numbers in use in telescope technology and computer network added monitoring.

Sure the old seismographs could pick things up but they were positioned fairly far apart and almost all the recording was done in analog on paper roles that took a considerable amount of time to bring together analyze and calculate where an earthquake had occurred and to how strong it was and if it didn't raise local attention it largely got ignored simple due to the time and effort involved in accurately figuring out the details.

Now with the new systems that have been put in place in the last 10 - 15 years that are all networked to computer systems that can record and calculate any activity that any sensor picks up and triangulate it with numerous others in near instantaneous real time plus plot it on a geographic map seeing all those little bitty quakes that previously were ignored simply due to the manpower, time and related cost it took to work out where every single one was is now not a factor.

Simply put I see it as the USGS earthquake monitoring system went from running on a green phosphor CRT resolution up to around the early 2000's to digital 1080i HD LCD as it sits today which likely has a huge amount of influence on why we can see things today that were impossible only a few years ago.

But what do I know. I'm only going by the data given on the websites related to the timelines of earthquake monitoring in North America and not using the tried and true method of just pulling things out of my butt and calling them facts.

 

I haven't been taking about small earthquakes that get ignored. I've been talking about significantly large earthquakes that could easily be detedted by the technology of the 1980's. Nothing that's been shown says otherwise.

 

So, brownout, what is the source of your maps?

 

It's unlikely that advances in seismographic instrumentation and wider deployment could account for the dramatic rise in earthquakes in OK.

Nice. That's like saying it is unlikely that improvements in time measurement didn't cause the definition of the second to change.

 

Nice. That's like saying it is unlikely that improvements in time measurement didn't cause the definition of the second to change.

Since the definition of a magnitude 3.0 earthquake hasn't changed (at least not since well before the period being considered), I don't see any equivalence.

http://earthquakes.ok.gov/what-we-know/earthquake-map/

 

You might want to look at the known fault lines from Oklahoma Geological Survey.

 

I haven't been taking about small earthquakes that get ignored. I've been talking about significantly large earthquakes that could easily be detedted by the technology of the 1980's. Nothing that's been shown says otherwise.

It depends on how they were quantifying the significance of earthquakes back then and to what efforts they went to accurately document them or their exact location. Exspecially so given that the detection systems of the time were few and far between. Accurate and sensitive or not trying to pinpoint small scale earthquakes that happened in the middle of nowhere from far away with only a handful of analog detection and recording points across the whole continent was likely just not that big of concern being scientists and politicians of the time had no agendas to prop up with scare tactics and what if scenarios like they do now.

Because of that more than likely anything that did little to no measurable damage simply got ignored. It's not like a 4.0 in the middle of sparsely populated prairie draws much attention or does much damage to anything of documentable significance by the standards of the day.

It's similar to wind speed recordings and damage today. Some place populated gets hit with a day or two of sustained 30 - 50 MPH wind and its all over the media for days. Where I live wind like that is a near weekly occurrence and doesn't even make the local news because lets face it by the medias standards there is no one here nothing to harm to begin with.