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.

 

Earthquake Frequency

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Here's a graph I made by creating my own database out of the USGS database of earthquakes around the world since 1973. I started at 1980 just to lessen the "we didn't have the technology to detect stuff" effect. Still the effect of incomplete surveying is likely there, but the trend all the way upto 2005 is pretty obvious! But there is something else I noticed that is also very interesting....



What is not shown on this graph is a detailed monthly analysis (the graph is all yearly numbers). But if one was to take a look at monthly frequency of earthquakes of magnitude 1.0 to 2.4, you'd see that in the last 12 months or so (starting July 2004 and still continuing), there is a huge ABSENSE of earthquake data (only for the frequencis 1.0 upto 2.4). I am not sure why that is. I doubt it's because the earthquakes of those magnitudes suddenly "stopped" (thought if that is the case, that is pretty freaky eh?), and my thought is that either they did not update the database in that area (intentionally or not?), or they had problems detecting the earthquake using whatever means they have to detect worldwide quakes.

Most probable in my mind is that this is a database issue, so the question is, why are the last 12 months of earthquakes of magnitude 1.0 to 2.4 almost entirely missing from the database? They are not COMPLETELY gone, but there is a 90% decrease in frequency!

Have a look for yourself: wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov...

I emailed the "web team" and hopefully I get a response. Does anyone else think that this is rather odd? It's not that it is not up to date, the data is very much up to date - but there is 90% less earthquakes of magnitude 1.0 to 2.4 in the last 12 months for one reason or another. I'm going to make another graph so the sudden almost total drop is clearly seen


P.S. - apparently other websites like "infoplease.com" are using that same database because they too have the same "hole" in their data. So far I haven't seen another website of earthquake data that does not suffer from this giant omission.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by lilblam]




posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Good job Lil


Have you looked here earthquake.usgs.gov...
there date has lots of 2.0 quakes



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MauiStacey
Have you looked here earthquake.usgs.gov...
there date has lots of 2.0 quakes


Nope, it doesn't! Not since july of 2004, almost all quakes of magnitude 1.0 to 2.4 are mysteriously missing. Look at the very page you gave me, can you spot any 2.0 quakes? I can see plenty of 2.5 and above....



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
hmmm you are right. Maybe they stopped including them to save space?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MauiStacey
hmmm you are right. Maybe they stopped including them to save space?


Probably the most important earthquake recording database in the world, which is accurate up to the last minute (if not second), wouldn't just stop recording a whole magnitude chunk of earthquakes to save space, I'd think. I just see that as unlikely as for biologists to stop counting the populations of the smaller animals around the world, to save space. I think you might be underestimating the importance of this database to the geologists around the planet, and how crucial it is to have accurate and always updated data on everything we can possibly detect.

You *may* be right, but it just doesn't make any sense to me! Would hospitals stop paying attention to "mild diseases" to save space, and only pay attention to the really painful ones?

Oh besides, I copied their entire database and created my database out of theirs (the WHOLE database), and it's only around 500,000 earthquakes total and takes up about 30 megabytes of SPACE. So again, another reason why it makes NO sense to save space of a few megabytes when in 2005 we have hard drives of 500 gigs and more.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by lilblam]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Jebus, excuse me for trying to be helpful:@



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MauiStacey
Jebus, excuse me for trying to be helpful:@


Nothing wrong with that, I'm just giving you my reasons for why I think your ideas about this absense of data are likely wrong. Just cuz I disagree with some stuff you said doesn't mean you should stop trying to be helpful!



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Wow!!!

Look at the line of the Magnitude 3.0 to 3.9 and the line of the Magnitude 4.0 to 4.9 !!!!

It's a very clear pattern!



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
i dont know crap about earthquakes but i find the drop of the little ones pretty darn interesting. there are lots of people here who are pretty knowledgeable. i hope someone has a clue.

along the same lines i thought it was weird that all the shaking and booming felt in wisconsin was said to be a 3.0 quake when those are usually not even noticeable.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join