Log in to view full website content, join discussions, and to post information.

Duty Seismologist report


Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0pt 5.4pt 0pt 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0pt; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

1) Since yesterday afternoon I have canceled quite a few events with clearly bogus locations, including a M4 near Yuma around midnight last night.   It doesn’t appear that any emails are being sent out for canceled events.

2)"Snapshot pages" are missing for some events this morning, even on craton, including the M4.0 at 1249 UTC.

3) I spoke with Jim Goltz by phone last night about sequence statistics. Following this call I checked with Morgan, who reported the catalog was too much of a mess to get sequence statistics.   I asked if she could compare the number of large aftershocks with expectations for a generic CA sequence – she did, and reports good apparent consistency between predictions for generic parameters and the number of M5s reported by NEIC.   There is some question about NEIC solutions for M5 events -- Paul Earle is talking to Kate about getting the SCSN solutions rather than the NEIC solutions on the NEIC page.  My sense is that the number of M5s will drop slightly.

4) As of last night, based on generic parameters, the expected number of M5s in the next 3 days was 2.7.   One of them happened around 6am this morning, near Octotillo.

5) I talked with someone from FEMA Region IX about the events north of the border: which were bogus, which were real, consistency with expectations for aftershocks & triggered earthquakes, etc.  Assuming the mainshock rupture is delimited by the dense swath of aftershocks (up to near Ocotillo), the spattering of events in southern California are within one fault length of the mainshock, and thus within the conventional aftershock zone.  There was also a low level of more distant triggering, apparently at the Geysers; also a M3.0 event near Malibu around 4:10 (LT) yesterday afternoon.

6) I am scheduled to give the IGPP seminar down at Scripps this afternoon.  Kate Hutton will formally take over for me as Duty Seismologist starting at 9am.  When I get back this evening, hopefully by 8pm, I will take the football back, and remain on duty until Wednesday.

7) I understand that Elizabeth Cochran and others are discussing the possibility of deploying portable instruments.   It sounds like Erol Kolkan will also be heading down with field techs from Pasadena.   I am heading back to Haiti a week from today and won’t be able to be involved with any field efforts that are undertaken.

Sue Hough, USGS Pasadena (hough@usgs.gov)