SubjectProphet Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 http://i.imgur.com/zEECw.jpg That's kinda me right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 1980 to 1989 ... 6 - 6.9 Magnitude ... 980 earthquakes ...... 7 - 7.9 Magnitude ... 101 earthquakes ..... 8 - 9.9 Magnitude ... 4 1990 to 1999 ... 6 -6.9 Magnitude ... 1339 earthquakes ..... 7 -7.9 Magnitude ... 147 earthquakes ...... 8 -9.9 Magnitude ... 6 2000 to 2009 ... 6 - 6.9 Magnitude ...1467 earthquakes ..... 7- 7.9 Magnitude ... 131 earthquakes ...... 8 - 9.9 Magnitude ...13 2010 to 2012 ... 6 to 6.9 Magnitude ... 365 earthquakes ..... 7 - 7.9 Magnitude ... 46 earthquakes ....... 8 - 9.9 Magnitude ... 2 1990-2009 looks consistent> 140-150 magnitude 7 and above. IF the trend continues in the 2010 onwards then it would yield roughly 200 magnitude 7+ quakes. Is that going to be the case? Maybe, who knows. We'd have to wait and see. Either outcome it's not an indication of anything being at the edge of anything else, nor is it going to be magic and unexplainable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbringe Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 1980 to 1989 ... 6 - 6.9 Magnitude ... 980 earthquakes ...... 7 - 7.9 Magnitude ... 101 earthquakes ..... 8 - 9.9 Magnitude ... 4 1990 to 1999 ... 6 -6.9 Magnitude ... 1339 earthquakes ..... 7 -7.9 Magnitude ... 147 earthquakes ...... 8 -9.9 Magnitude ... 6 2000 to 2009 ... 6 - 6.9 Magnitude ...1467 earthquakes ..... 7- 7.9 Magnitude ... 131 earthquakes ...... 8 - 9.9 Magnitude ...13 2010 to 2012 ... 6 to 6.9 Magnitude ... 365 earthquakes ..... 7 - 7.9 Magnitude ... 46 earthquakes ....... 8 - 9.9 Magnitude ... 2 1990-2009 looks consistent> 140-150 magnitude 7 and above. IF the trend continues in the 2010 onwards then it would yield roughly 200 magnitude 7+ quakes. Is that going to be the case? Maybe, who knows. We'd have to wait and see. Either outcome it's not an indication of anything being at the edge of anything else, nor is it going to be magic and unexplainable... 2000 to 2009 ... 6 - 6.9 Magnitude ...1467 earthquakes ..... 7- 7.9 Magnitude ... 131 earthquakes ...... 8 - 9.9 Magnitude ...13 The smaller range quakes can be argued to be consistent but those big ones aren't ,that's a +110% or more increase over the 2 preceding decades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) Clusters are pretty much expected in any randomly occurring phenomenon. 2007 had 4 above 8 magnitude quakes. 2008 had zero. The first half of the last century had 42 at 8 and above, the later half 32, which when using such short data sets one might draw some other conclusion. Granted the last decade did have the record year for 8+ quakes. but in the early 90s there wasn't even one for 5 years. You can read all sorts of things into earthquake data. I bet if you changed the dates from turn of the decade to mid decade chunks, ie 1985-1995 it could change how it actually looks. Might be funny to see it if that looks really different... Edited April 4, 2012 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbringe Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Clusters are pretty much expected in any randomly occurring phenomenon. 2007 had 4 above 8 magnitude quakes. 2008 had zero. The first half of the last century had 42 at 8 and above, the later half 32, which when using such short data sets one might draw some other conclusion. Granted the last decade did have the record year for 8+ quakes. but in the early 90s there wasn't even one for 5 years. You can read all sorts of things into earthquake data. I bet if you changed the dates from turn of the decade to mid decade chunks, ie 1985-1995 it could change how it actually looks. Might be funny to see it if that looks really different... Actually if you did that and broke them into a more specific magnitude range would be more clear, cause the difference between an 8 and a 9 or more is pretty huge in the amount of power they put out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidus44 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Weird noises from the sky? Electromagnetic resonance. Come up north and listen to the aurora borealis sometime. With an increase in solar flares over the last year, it has been quite loud this winter. Kept me up a number of nights it was so loud. Increase in earthquakes or an increase in the number of seismic stations and recording instruments and better sensitivity in instruments over the last 20 years? 1980 about 1200 seismic stations. 2010 just over 3000 seismic stations (and probably more by now). More seismic events are recorded and more accurately and add that to the increase in internet and media communications, so we hear about them more often. Additionally, the scales used were not all the same (and still are not) world wide, but were refined in 2003 so they are a lot closer than they were, but are still not identical. Lastly, seismology is not the most accurate science in the world due to various factors. For example, a 3.3 was recorded in the last year near where I live which had everyone in the field running as I do not live in an earthquake prone zone. It took a month, but it was finally determined no earthquake had occurred; it was caused by a machine that is used to determine roadbed stability. This was discovered only by luck and finally confirmed by testing, and would have remained a mystery and question mark in data had the cause not been determined (damned permafrost). As for all that other weather phenomena - has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. While it is obvious weather patterns have changed over the last 30 years, accurate weather data only exists for about 110 years (at least in NA) and who knows how often such cycles actually do occur or if there is some other influence. And as pointed out already, - do you actually believe everything on the internet and from the media? And why would anyone sensationalize any thing? I’m just pointing out some things that are known. If you don’t agree – feel free to believe what you want and stay awake at nights worrying about the end of times. Me, I’m going out back for a really nice Cuban cigar and a big glass of Glenfiddich Snow Phoenix and enjoy the sunset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I’m just pointing out some things that are known. If you don’t agree – feel free to believe what you want and stay awake at nights worrying about the end of times. Me, I’m going out back for a really nice Cuban cigar and a big glass of Glenfiddich Snow Phoenix and enjoy the sunset.Now that is what I call a plan with taste....substitute Bowmore single malt and I'm on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintii Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 @ Tidus44 ... Yes, I suppose that there is a lot of truth to the fact that over the decades the number of Seismic stations etc., has grown and therefore the number of activities being recorded has grown because of it ... but that does not really answer the question ... are earthquakes increasing or not ... but let's hope that you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) Clusters are pretty much expected in any randomly occurring phenomenon. 2007 had 4 above 8 magnitude quakes. 2008 had zero. The first half of the last century had 42 at 8 and above, the later half 32, which when using such short data sets one might draw some other conclusion. Granted the last decade did have the record year for 8+ quakes. but in the early 90s there wasn't even one for 5 years. You can read all sorts of things into earthquake data. I bet if you changed the dates from turn of the decade to mid decade chunks, ie 1985-1995 it could change how it actually looks. Might be funny to see it if that looks really different... Actually if you did that and broke them into a more specific magnitude range would be more clear, cause the difference between an 8 and a 9 or more is pretty huge in the amount of power they put out.Actually... if you did that and just measured total energy output what ever decade category you put the 1960 9.5 Chilean earthquake in, it would probably win. That one quake alone had greater energy output than the 2004 and Japan quake, plus 12 other 8.5s combined. Let's not forget another 9.2 was within 4 years of that 1960 quake. Edited April 4, 2012 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidus44 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 @ Tidus44 ... Yes, I suppose that there is a lot of truth to the fact that over the decades the number of Seismic stations etc., has grown and therefore the number of activities being recorded has grown because of it ... but that does not really answer the question ... are earthquakes increasing or not ... but let's hope that you are right. @Nintii-Just to reassure you, data from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Laboratoire de Geophysique show that the number of earthquakes have not significantly changed (increase or decrease) since 1976 and particularly those of 7 and greater magnitude. So the answer is NO, the number of earthquakes is not increasing. Not sure where you got the information you posted, but it doesn't match with USGS or LDEO data. @Aurielius-Sorry, only got a small bit of The Glenlivet as an alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now