 |
|
Topic started on 12-1-2005 @ 04:19 PM by jammerman
|
Anyone else keeping an eye on this?
Does anyone have past data on the last time this area was this active?
earthquake.usgs.gov...
~Jammer
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-1-2005 @ 04:24 PM by soficrow
|
 Originally posted by jammerman
Anyone else keeping an eye on this?
Does anyone have past data on the last time this area was this active? 
Thanks Jammer - not watching it but interested. FYI - the Asia quake was preceded by a 5 or 6 point quake on December 24, 2 days before... (more info
on the tsunami-9/11 thread.)
Several members have insisted - in the face of some fairly pointed ridicule - that there is SOMETHING going on. ...Seems to me there is.
.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-1-2005 @ 05:28 PM by madhatter
|
There was also a quake in Palm Springs or near there yesterday, 4.3
magnitude.
You really do have to wonder if something isn't going on 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-1-2005 @ 08:43 PM by DJSpellBound
|
That is rather interesting... I have to keep an eye out on that...thankz for posting that.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-1-2005 @ 09:18 PM by DontTreadOnMe
|
There was another Mid Atlantic quakes, but smaller, on 12-29-2004.
www.iris.edu...
If you click on the aove link, you will notice areas with purple dots, froming purple lines and purple areas? Those are quakes from the last five
years.
The WAS a huge quake, with a horrific tsunami last month, and that was unusual. But by and large, there are always quakes happening.
Most of us just weren't paying attention!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-1-2005 @ 11:13 PM by jammerman
|
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
There was another Mid Atlantic quakes, but smaller, on 12-29-2004.
www.iris.edu...
If you click on the aove link, you will notice areas with purple dots, froming purple lines and purple areas? Those are quakes from the last five
years.
The WAS a huge quake, with a horrific tsunami last month, and that was unusual. But by and large, there are always quakes happening.
Most of us just weren't paying attention!
Good link. Thank you.
It is true that there has always been quakes, and war and famine and that with the evolution of communication we are able to access so much more data
much more quickly than in recent history. So, perhaps nothing is "happening", but it certainly "feels" like there is. David Wilcock has written
a book called "The Divine Cosmos" which scientifically details the energetic changes taking place (not just on Earth) but in our entire solar
system. You can read it online here:
ascension2000.com...
Here's a few of the trends taking place...
- A 400-percent increase in the number of quakes on Earth (over 2.5 on the Richter scale) since 1973 (Mandeville 1998)
- A ~500-percent increase in Earth’s volcanic activity between 1875 and 1993 (Mandeville 2000)
- 9 out of the 21 most severe earthquakes from 856-1999 AD occurred in the 20th century (Russian National Earthquake Information
Center, 1999)
- A 230-percent increase in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field since 1901 (Lockwood, 1998)
- A 300-percent increase in the amount of “severe” solar activity than what was formally predicted for the year 1997 alone (NASA
1998)
- 400-percent or higher increases in the speed that solar particle emissions are capable of traveling through the energy of
interplanetary space (NASA 1997-2001)
- Recent magnetic pole shifts of Uranus and Neptune, as Voyager 2 observed their magnetic axes being significantly offset from their
rotational axes (Dmitriev 1997)
- Visible brightness increases now being detected on Saturn (Dmitriev 1997)
- 200-percent increase in the intensity of Jupiter’s magnetic field from 1992-97 (Dmitriev 1997)
- 200-percent increase in the known density of Mars’ atmosphere encountered by the Mars Surveyor satellite in 1997 (NASA 1997)
- Significant melting of Martian polar icecaps in just one year, clearly seen in satellite photography (NASA 2001)
- Significant physical, chemical and optical changes on Venus, including a sharp decrease in sulfur-containing gases in its atmosphere
and increasing brightness (Dmitriev 1997)
I guess we'll just have to go through time to find out for sure.
It's too bad that map doesn't show the magnitude of the older quakes as that would tell us if that 6.8 quake is significant with respect to size
over time rather than just location.
Peace,
~Jammer
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-1-2005 @ 10:53 AM by E_T
|
Originally posted by soficrow
Thanks Jammer - not watching it but interested. FYI - the Asia quake was preceded by a 5 or 6 point quake on December 24, 2 days before... (more info
on the tsunami-9/11 thread.) Previous bigger one before Sumatra's quake was 8.1 between NZ and Antarctis.
DEC 23 14:59:03.6 UTC
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
There was another Mid Atlantic quakes, but smaller, on 12-29-2004.
www.iris.edu...
If you click on the aove link, you will notice areas with purple dots, froming purple lines and purple areas? Those are quakes from the last five
years.
The WAS a huge quake, with a horrific tsunami last month, and that was unusual. But by and large, there are always quakes happening.
Most of us just weren't paying attention!
It wasn't unusual, on the contrary it has taken very long time to get new big one.
neic.usgs.gov...
And how much quake is reported in news doesn't tell s**t, that 8.1 between NZ and Antarctis was second biggest quake of the 2004 (and although had
only ~1/22 of energy compared to Sumatra's it still released ~8x as much as third biggest) and I bet hardly anyone remembers that.
Originally posted by jammerman
It's too bad that map doesn't show the magnitude of the older quakes as that would tell us if that 6.8 quake is significant with respect to size
over time rather than just location.
This was moderately big for this kind of plate boundary. (only subduction zones cause very strong quakes)
But amount of 6-6.9 magnitude quakes is something like ~130 annually... so if I would be you I would be more worried if annual amount of those would
suddenly drop to something like once in a month.
BTW, energy release of Sumatra's quake was 32x32x2 times as much as this so from that perspective comparing this to it is like comparing one dynamite
bar to 2000 lb HE bomb.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-1-2005 @ 10:57 AM by E_T
|
And then to alltime topten of BS.
Originally posted by soficrow
ascension2000.com...
Here's a few of the trends taking place...
- A 400-percent increase in the number of quakes on Earth (over 2.5 on the Richter scale) since 1973 (Mandeville 1998)
- A ~500-percent increase in Earth’s volcanic activity between 1875 and 1993 (Mandeville 2000)
- 9 out of the 21 most severe earthquakes from 856-1999 AD occurred in the 20th century (Russian National Earthquake Information
Center, 1999)
- A 230-percent increase in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field since 1901 (Lockwood, 1998)
- Recent magnetic pole shifts of Uranus and Neptune, as Voyager 2 observed their magnetic axes being significantly offset from their
rotational axes (Dmitriev 1997)
- 200-percent increase in the intensity of Jupiter’s magnetic field from 1992-97 (Dmitriev 1997)
- Significant melting of Martian polar icecaps in just one year, clearly seen in satellite photography (NASA 2001) We
will be seeing increase in this small quakes until we have added "couple zeroes" to end of the number of seismographs in the world.
A look at the number of volcanoes active per year, over the last few centuries, shows a dramatic increase, but one that is closely related to
increases in the world's human population and communication. We believe that this represents an increased reporting of eruptions, rather than
increased frequency of global volcanism: more observers, in wider geographic distribution, with better communication, and broader publication. The
past 200 years (see plot below) show this generally increasing trend along with some major "peaks and valleys" which suggest global pulsations. A
closer look at the two largest valleys, however, shows that they coincide with the two World Wars, when people (including editors) were preoccupied
with other things. Many more eruptions were probably witnessed during those times, but reports do not survive in the scientific literature.
If these apparent drops in global volcanism are caused by decreased human attention to volcanoes, then it is reasonable to expect that increased
attention after major, newsworthy eruptions should result in higher-than-average numbers of volcanoes being reported in the historical literature. The
1902 disasters at Mont Pelee, St. Vincent, and Santa Maria (see 1902 arrow) were highly newsworthy events. They represent a genuine pulse in Caribbean
volcanism, but we believe that the higher numbers in following years (and following Krakatau in 1883) result from increased human interest in
volcanism. People reported events that they might not otherwise have reported and editors were more likely to print those reports.
Additional strong evidence that the historical increase in global volcanism is more apparent than real comes from the lower plot below. Here only the
larger eruptions (generating at least 0.1 km3 of tephra, the fragmental products of explosive eruptions) are plotted. The effects of these larger
events are often regional, and therefore less likely to escape documentation even in remote areas. The frequency of these events has remained
impressively constant for more than a century, and contrasts strongly with the apparent increase of smaller eruptions with time.
www.volcano.si.edu...
Seeing "big" amount of eruptions and quakes in this time of internet&fast communications doesn't mean they weren't there when communication was
slow or lacked completely. Before telegraph there wasn't really effective way for sending news globally and human populations was very thin in places
which are currently populated.
Saying that sun's magnetic field has increased after 1901 is complete bull#, that text itself tells that it's based on that stuff itself... before
probes there wasn't any way to get data from sun's magnetic field.
Also it's strength/polarity varies in 11 year period, "after" that magnetic poles change places.
Also there couldn't have been any hard data from mangetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before Voyager 2... neither talking about after that, so
saying there's shift of magnetic field going on there is BS.
And neither there could have been hard data about Jupiter's magnetosphere, Galileo probe arrived to Jupiter on December 7, 1995.
Wake up nuts! Mars has seasons which change look of it from sizes of polar caps to "annual" dust storm covering whole planet. It's just that
instead of tilt of rotation axis seasons of Mars are caused by high eccentricity of its orbit.
Just to make few corrections...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-1-2005 @ 04:15 PM by DontTreadOnMe
|
Originally posted by E_T
And how much quake is reported in news doesn't tell s**t, that 8.1 between NZ and Antarctis was second biggest quake of the 2004 (and although had
only ~1/22 of energy compared to Sumatra's it still released ~8x as much as third biggest) and I bet hardly anyone remembers that.
Well, that may be the one I remember the best, as it was the one that acquainted me with the USGS site and all the ATSers who follow
earthquakes. When that one happened, I signed up for email notifications of 5.0s and higher. So, a few days later, the 12-26 eathquake hit, and my
inbox had lots of quakes to report.
From what I've read, I know we were overdue for a big quake.
E_T, what do you think will be next? Just regular quakes, of another 8.0+ quake?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-1-2005 @ 06:13 PM by soficrow
|
Originally posted by E_T
And then to alltime topten of BS.
E_T - the post you credit to me as being "alltime topten BS" was made by Jammer, Post Number: 1085339.
Given your obviously cavalier approach to the process of verification - I'm sure you'll understand why I am not inclined to take your "debunking"
very seriously...
[edit on 13-1-2005 by soficrow]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
