posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 09:10 AM
Actually, what’s you’re asking for from the USGS is not going to answer the question.
Say the USGS has had a station in Davis, CA since 1973. This station is found to have picked up every 6.0 quake in the world from 1973 to date.
Now, in, say, 1993 we add a station in Nepal. And this station picks up every 6.0 quake from 1993 to date.
Now, for this thought experiment we say that the number of 6.0’s picked up by the Davis station from 1993 to date exactly equals the number of 6.0’s
picked up by the Nepal station. In fact, they are the identical quakes for each station.
If you now normalize the number of 6.0 quakes based on the number of stations, you have produced an erroneous picture…basically you would be halving
the number of 6.0 events from 1993 to date, when, in fact, they are just as if the Nepal station had never been brought online.
In order to account for the addition of measurements, the data must be analyzed against a snapshot of stations recording events in 1973 (the beginning
of NEIC data for my charts). Then, on a quake-by-quake basis, you have to look at whether that event was recorded by any of the stations present in
1973. If it was, you don’t add any other reporting stations. It is only when you find a quake that has a recording by ONLY a new station brought
This is a major analysis job. I am more than willing to assist in this, because 1. I’m a seismic junkie. 2. I’m an analytical freak, and 3. I
want to know the TRUTH.
Here is my suggestion to you:
u2u Advisor and submit a request for a Research Project to determine whether seismic activity is, in fact, increasing, or whether it is a matter of
improved/increased measurements. Name yourself as team lead. Before, submitting this request select four members you believe would be beneficial to
your team and u2u them asking them if they would participate in your project. Once you have a team of 4 or 5 people (including yourself), then u2u
I’ll tell you now, that I will participate if you choose to have me as a member.