It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


There has been a Global Surge in EQ's since 2004 - Geological Society of America

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:39 AM
a reply to: muzzy

No offense, Muzzy, but I'm going to pay more attention to what a group says versus you alone. You and Puterman have been downplaying the significance of increasing earthquakes for the past two years that I've been here, and now it's becoming apparent there is actually an uptick in large quakes as well as small quakes (geologists are now verifying what many of us ATSers have claimed all along), and you still have an answer for's normal. You can fudge numbers for us for so long, but the truth will come out...

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:41 PM
a reply to: Rezlooper

Why not discredit the information instead of getting mad that they didn't agree with you?
Unless their information is sound, then..........

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:49 PM

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Rezlooper

Why not discredit the information instead of getting mad that they didn't agree with you?
Unless their information is sound, then..........

I have...over and over again

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 11:56 PM
a reply to: Rezlooper

You didn't even look at the graph and my text did you?
1950-1960 = 4,084,691,299 TTNT
2004-2014 = 1,996,413,063 TTNT
There you can see that 2004-2014 had only half the energy release compared to the period 1950-1960
It doesn't matter how "many" there were, it is how big there were.
So the "group" are talking BS. My data is from the same sources.

posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:38 AM
a reply to: muzzy

Two years ago, I agree, it was the smaller quakes that increased, but what about now? Is there not an increase in larger quakes? And volcanoes?

posted on May, 20 2016 @ 01:04 PM

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 02:32 AM
I have come back to this topic again, because it was the one that started me off doing what has become a multiple year research project. The longer I go through it the more questions appear.
Lately I have been including other magnitude types other then Mw, so the numbers are on the up overall.
So now it's 6.5+ , not 7.0+ that it was to start with. It is those ones that were slipping just under the 7.0 threshold that really got me going, there were so many of them, and they kept changing, on the data over a couple of years of my research.

Anyway for those that already have been following the Blog
I'm stuck in the 2010's right now, going back and forth as I find more data.

52 new events found for 2012, bringing the total to 95 !!!
It took me 3 days to get this one done, I kept getting interupted, and having to go to work!
I used the search on ISC to get the new data
no restrictions on magnitude type, just 6.5+
and also a lot of new additions to the mag types on the original 43 I had too, mainly from [bji] Catalogue of hypocenters and magnitudes, State Seismological Bureau, Beijing, China, [dja] Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi dan Geofisika, Indonesia which is a site I stopped going to as it was riddled with viruses, and [man] Philippines.
This was the year of the 2 M8's W off Sumatra, and now there are many aftershocks in the 6.5+ range added, mostly from [dja]
Some of the higher magnitudes have shifted up or down 0.1 magnitude, due to more data being available. I don't always pick Mw, but if it's there I'll use it. Same if one of the sources says 7.6 when the majority say 7.2, I'll use the 7.2 as the primary magnitude for the list.
in summary for the new 2012
M6.5= 4 now 31
M6.6= 6 now 20
M6.7= 9 now 11
M6.8= 5 now 8
M7.0= 2 now 4
M7.1= 5 now 4
M7.2= 3 now 0
M7.3= 1 now 3
M7.4= 3 now 4
M7.7= 3 still 3
M8.2= 1 still 1
M8.6= 1 still 1

now I'll need to go back and do 2013-2015 and do the same, as I forgot about using ISC when I did those.
I hope readers can follow the [codes] it can get pretty confusing, you need to keep the 'About" page open in another tab to keep checking what they heck they mean, after a while you get to recall the source by the 3-4 digits.

edit on 0600000015315316 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 01:27 PM
further to: muzzy
What is taking so long is cross checking to avoid duplication's.
ISC have a lot of extra quakes right on 6.5 that only have one source, and often it is just NEIC with a ME reading.
That is not enough to be sure it fits the criteria, because IRIS do Me_bb (Magnitude Energy Broadband) and Me_hf (Magnitude Energy High Frequency) to 2 decimal digits for most quakes over 6.0 it should be there on IRIS if it is above 6.5.
So once I have removed duplication's that leaves these borderline 6.5's which I then have to go back to IRIS and see what they had, because originally I set the IRIS search parameters to 6.5Mw not ME.

edit on 0600000015315316 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 01:11 PM
I'm struggling with about 50 events downloaded from ISC for 2013,
they are mostly [bkk] Thai Meteorological Department, Bangkok, Thailand or [gns]or[wel] Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, New Zealand
only the one source and in the range of 6.5-6.7 that I can't find any other confirmations for
GNS I'd trust, but they often do go a bit high for offshore (Tonga, Fiji etc) quake measurements

but [bkk] are sometimes way way off the mark (by up to 1 whole magnitude) with their readings of quakes in the SE Asia area that the main networks have located that I wonder if their system isn't defective. So should I trust them on the 6.5's in neighbouring Myanmar (Burma) for instance?
Probably not. I might still add [bkk] as a confirming source, but not as the single primary source. Probably should do the same for GNS, eg if there is a 6.5 listed, but everyone else says 5.5 then it's not really a legitimate event to fit my 6.5+ criteria.
I hope I'm on the right track with this, each year is taking a couple of days to build.
edit on 0600000015415416 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 11:56 AM
a reply to: muzzy

Thanks for all your research and information on this topic, Muzzy

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in