It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The average rate of big earthquakes — those larger than magnitude 7 — has been 10 per year since 1979, the study reports. That rate rose to 12.5 per year starting in 1992, and then jumped to 16.7 per year starting in 2010 — a 65 percent increase compared to the rate since 1979. This increase accelerated in the first three months of 2014 to more than double the average since 1979, the researchers report.
The rise in earthquakes is statistically similar to the results of flipping a coin, Parsons said: Sometimes heads or tails will repeat several times in a row, even though the process is random.
"Basically, we can't prove that what we saw during the first part of 2014, as well as since 2010, isn't simply a similar thing to getting six tails in a row," he said.
But Parsons said the statistical findings don't rule out the possibility that the largest earthquakes may trigger one another across great distances. Researchers may simply lack the data to understand such global "communication," he said.
Now the big question remains; how are the earthquakes related to dangerous gases. This is a theory proposed a few years back in a book by James McGuire entitled Waking the Giant: How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes, where the author states that the melting ice at the poles relieves pressure on the earth’s continental plates. The slightest pressure change will cause tectonic movement resulting in earthquakes. Basically, as the atmosphere heats up, we are experiencing a rapid thawing of Arctic ice. As the ice retreats, all that weight relieves pressure on the Earth’s crust which would naturally cause it to adjust.
According to an article on NPR.org the summer of 2012 saw the most dramatic ice melt in several thousand years. It literally smashed records. Of course there is always melt in the summer time, about half the ice, but the article points out three quarters of the ice melted this past summer. The previous record for ice melt was in 2007, also within the time frame of the rapid methane increase in the atmosphere. The additional ice melt this year was the size of Texas. That’s a lot of ice and a lot of weight on the continental plates.
originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: thesaneone
Of course, what the USGS tells you, you'd choose to believe. Coming from the agency that continues to down grade each and every quake to skew the numbers. Just this morning a 7.1 occurred in Mexico, immediately downgraded to a 6.9 by the USGS so that we have one less 7.0 + this year.
originally posted by: OpenEars123
originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: thesaneone
Of course, what the USGS tells you, you'd choose to believe. Coming from the agency that continues to down grade each and every quake to skew the numbers. Just this morning a 7.1 occurred in Mexico, immediately downgraded to a 6.9 by the USGS so that we have one less 7.0 + this year.
Hi,
A genuine question if may, as I don't know much about the USGS.
What would they gain from downgrading earthquakes?
I'm assuming it's due to a political agenda?
Thanks 👍
originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: InhaleExhale
Immediately downgraded. Why is it that most of these quakes are always downgraded by the USGS but not the other agencies?
Why is it that most of these quakes are always downgraded by the USGS but not the other agencies?
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Rezlooper
The same agency that you claim are downgrading E.Q's also upgrade just as many, so what would the benefit be by upgrading?
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: InhaleExhale
Immediately downgraded. Why is it that most of these quakes are always downgraded by the USGS but not the other agencies?
Immediately, you say? That's funny, because I eyeballed the page for it the entire time, hitting refresh like a boss to see if it would go up or down for about 45 minutes after I posted it in the Quake Watch thread. That's not immediate, Rez, that's someone reviewing the data. GEOFON also has it as a 6.9, while EMSC has it at 7.0 still. Actually, feel free to sift through the EMSC's list of data providers, because the magnitude varies with them all.
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Rezlooper
The same agency that you claim are downgrading E.Q's also upgrade just as many, so what would the benefit be by upgrading?
originally posted by: Rezlooper
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Rezlooper
The same agency that you claim are downgrading E.Q's also upgrade just as many, so what would the benefit be by upgrading?
If that's true, could you provide some backup to that claim. Could you even just post one original news story of a recent quake and then show the official USGS report on it that shows an upgrade, I would like to see it. None of the quakes I have taken notice to has ever been upgraded, not in this past year anyways, and if you can show me a few, then I'll eat my words. What I see is that nearly every quake, and I mean literally, every quake over 5+ has been downgraded from the original reports. But hey, maybe that's just me and I'm watching at the wrong times...