More on Microseisms

The previous post gave me some confidence to suspect that storms in the north Atlantic basin may give rise to much of the microseism activity I see on my seismograph. Earlier this winter I ran across a public US Navy web page that shows the results of computer modeling of significant wave height in the north Atlantic and have been visually comparing those plots to my microseism activity. At least on some qualitative level this new information continues to support the notion that the microseisms I see result from storms at sea. Take a look at the two examples below.

On Jan 14, 2017, the seismograph was quiet so I looked at the significant wave height model to find that it was also very quiet:

seis_jan14201701z

sigwav_jan14201700z

Today, Feb 14, 2017 the seismograph is very noisy:

seis_feb14201713z

Take a look at the Significant Wave Height now.  The wave heights at the center are in the upper 30 to mid 40 feet values!

sigwav_feb14201706z

I had actually predicted that this would happen on Feb 11, 2017 by looking ahead at the Significant Wave forecast given by the model.  If I can find access to the gridded data or come up with a way to at least roughly re-digitize these charts I will try to see if there is a simple relationship and correlation between the wave height, the distance from the seismograph to the center, etc. and the amplitude of the microseisms.

This suddenly makes the microseisms, which used to be more of an annoyance, now almost as interesting to watch as the earthquakes.

Advertisements

Whence Microseisms?

 

8_11_2016

Normal Seismogram

10_8_2016

Noisy Seismogram showing Microseisms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the twelve years or so that I have been observing earth motions on my home built seismograph I have been puzzled by the occasional appearance of noisiness in the seismometer trace. I have read about these microseisms and tried unsuccessfully to identify a source of them. The literature always identifies storms at sea as the main cause but I discounted that explanation because of my location in Ohio and the fact that I don’t have a professional, broadband seismometer. So I looked at local wind speeds and wind gusts buffeting the house or moving the trees so much that their roots move. I have looked at local barometric pressure and temperature changes even monitoring the temperature inside the enclosure which contains my seismometer. I have wondered whether there is something in my amplifier electronics that might explain these tiny signals. Nothing worked out.

Earlier this month, I noticed that they were back and that they were growing quite strong. Then it occurred to me that Hurricane Matthew was approaching the east coast of Florida at the same time. Maybe the microseisms I see can be attributed to storms at sea!

I began a closer look at this by downloading time series data about the hurricane from the National Hurricane Center ftp site.  I wrote a python script to load the data from the downloaded file and plot the track of Hurricane Matthew and other information I thought might be important such as the maximum sustained wind, central pressure, and the distance of the eye from my home in Millersburg, Ohio which I calculated from the location data.

matthew_track

Note that P0 marks the location of the seismograph in Millersburg, Ohio.

I also downloaded a bundle of specialized microseism analysis tools from the IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutes for Seismology) software site.  This software is designed for advanced study using professional grade, broadband, multi-channel seismographs.  As such, I have most likely not applied it correctly, in fact bypassed important calculations, etc.  Having said that I hope that the “relative” analysis I did shows some direction toward a qualitative relationships between storms at sea and the microseisms I see recorded on my seismograph.  Here is what I found.

microseis_plot1

This data includes Local, Secondary, and Primary Microseism energy.  I chose to use the Primary band data since they all show similar qualitative response.  Hurricane Matthew dissipated  on Oct 10 and the NHC data file was closed and no more data was added.  More on that later.  I snipped the microseism graph off at Oct 10 and compared to the Hurricane central pressure and distance to the eye:

matthew_actualdata

Actual (non-inverted) data

This is a little hard to visualize in part because one would think that the microseism energy might be inversely related to both the distance and the central pressure.  We can look at the same information taking this into account by plotting the reciprocal of both quantities:

matthew_inverted

Inverted data (see text)

The last chart is the closest to correlated data that I have seen in twelve years or so of trying to figure this out.  Not perfect due to many known and unknown reasons but something for me now to be aware of when I see this noisiness show up.

The proximity of the storm seems predominant.  The central pressure seems to lead the microseism energy.  And finally, the original microseism graphs that went out to Oct 13 showed the noise staying high long after the NHC downgraded the storm.  Presumably, the ocean does not calm immediately after the storm dissipates.  An unmentioned complication in this study is that Hurricane Nicole was also present and strengthening during this time period further out in the Atlantic.

New Live Seismograph Display

jMBGOH

A year or so ago, I upgraded my seismograph software from the original IRIS AmaSeis program to an upgraded version based on Java called jAmaSeis.  I ran the new software on a little Asus netbook.  The helicorder display that I uploaded to the Live Seismograph page on this site was just a screen shot of the active window every five minutes.  The little netbook was at its performance limit and the screenshot made it impossible to do any analysis anyway.

This fall I built up a Linux desktop computer running XUbuntu 14.04LTS and installed jAmaSeis on it.  I downloaded from the IRIS website and followed the basic instructions for installation given on the same site.  With a little fiddling around, I got the software running.  I plugged in the Dataq DI-145 USB Analog to Digital converter…the software could not find it.  I fiddled around with it for a long time with no success.  I could see the device appear in /dev as ttyACM0 when I plugged it in.  After giving up on it a couple of times I finally created a symbolic link from ttyACM0 to ttyS32 where the seismograph software would detect it.  I do this manually every time the computer reboots or the ADC is unplugged.  I plan to write a udev rule to do this automatically.

To get the helicorder display for the Live Seismograph page I use an open source package of seismology tools for Python called Obspy.  jAmaSeis writes the data stream in one hour long segments in sac formatted files arranged in a time based directory structure.  The Obspy stream manipulation tools allow one to easily build a continuous 24 hour data stream from the jAmaSeis files and plot it in a moderately flexible way in a Python script.  This method yields several improvements over the screen shot.  The date and time are unambiguously shown on the vertical axis and the traces alternate through four colors to differentiate the hour in which an event occurs more clearly.  The Python script runs as a cron job every five minutes.

The Obspy package also provides tools to parse QuakeML documents which I obtain from a USGS feed inside the same script that plots the data.  After parsing each event, I use the obspy.core.util.locations2degrees tool to find the distance from the epicenter to my station.  The script then annotates the helicorder display with seismic events selected using magnitudes and distances that might be detected with my seismograph.  This selection is arbitrary so there will be some that show on the trace without annotation and others will be annotated when there is nothing showing on the trace.