It seems to correlate with a growing population.

I imagine most of those Deadly & Destructive Earthquakes were centered around heavily populated areas.

Got to say that those last 8 years look pretty dang alarming.

Great find.

Oh my. I suppose all I can say, is Jesus must be coming

Nice find.

I thought that the perception that large earthquakes are on the rise was due to better communications and dissemination of information. Surely that accounts for some of it, but not at that level.

Originally posted by jam321
It seems to correlate with a growing population.

I imagine most of those Deadly & Destructive Earthquakes were centered around heavily populated areas.

Got to say that those last 8 years look pretty dang alarming.

Great find.

No no, population has nothing to do with this chart. The populatiuon today and the population in 1990 has not changed by that much. It seems from 1900-1995, there was at most 5-6 major earthquakes a year. Remember this chart only graphs magnitude 6-8, earthquakes.

Why is it, that the only anomaly on the graph comes in the last 10 years, where for practically every year in that last decade, the amount of quakes is many times more of the average year for the previous century?

1998: 7
1999: 13 quakes
2000: 6 quakes
2001: 7 quakes
2002: 22 (4 times average)
2003: 38 (almost 8 times average)
2004: 33 (6+ times everage)
2005: 36 (7 times average)
2006: 24 (4 times average)

Between 1900-1997, the highest year of major quakes brought a total of 6, this was in years '35, '57, '75, '76.

Not once in the last 10 years, has the amount of major earthquakes been less than, the highest recorded amount from 1900-1997.

Food for thought eh.



Does this not seem odd?

Edit: The reason the graph is titled "Deadly and Destructive" is because of the magnitude of the quakes, not because of how many people they killed. This chart does not reflect casualities at all, there fore the last decade is a complete anomaly. Remember that the richter scale is exponential, so 6 is exponentially larger than a 5. The reasoning for the title is that 6-8 magnitude quakes are the most likely to cause death and destruction, and 9's are very rare.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by king9072]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by king9072]

After reviewing the USGS data this was taken from, it is apparent that the reported earthquakes over magnitude 6 has indeed increased greatly as communications technology, seismological instruments and information dissemination developed.

This may be a bit of a red-herring because of the above. We need to see how it correlates to the placement of measurement devices around the world. Has there been a large increase in ability to measure earthquakes in uninhabited or undeveloped areas going on at a similar rate to the increase?

The chart is simply a graph of reported quakes over 6 in magnitude. For that reason you would have to know many other details to even know if it is a true increase. Considering it is being used as a tool to sell a product and as an advertising vehicle on C2C, well you get the picture.

The person who put the information together should have pointed that out in the interest of intellectual honesty and not allowed it to be presented without all available information pertinent to the claim. After all their income relies some what on using fear to sell.

Ah come on, you cant tell me that it has gotten THAT much better in the past decade...

Saved to favorites , that is a site I want to watch.

I wonder if some new detection technique is recording what used to be unrecorded? I guess I would blame global warming and the Earth rebounding from being compressed under the weight of glaciers and maybe the ripples from that adjustment through out the world.

Maybe its a HAARP weapon or something like that. Not really sure how antennas can move ginormous blocks of earth enough for resettling.

Graphs go up and down and 100 years is a blink of the eye geologically speaking. Not too worried, as if there would be any point to that.

we have had a Global Seismographic Network for 50+ years.
so record keeping has been there.

here is another strange thing
this is the ongoing trona earthquake swarm.
there has been no real main shock or after shock.
this is also just outside of NWC China Lake a top secret Navy research base.
is the Navy playing with something?????

Mag Name/Epicenter Date Time Lat Lon Event ID
4.0 14.4 mi N of Trona, CA Dec 02 2008 16:53:08 UTC 35.971 -117.325 14407020
3.7 14.3 mi N of Trona, CA Dec 02 2008 16:41:19 UTC 35.970 -117.322 14407012
3.8 15.1 mi NNE of Trona, CA Dec 02 2008 11:23:43 UTC 35.979 -117.309 14406888
4.1 14.0 mi N of Trona, CA Nov 30 2008 13:03:06 UTC 35.967 -117.327 14406304
4.0 14.2 mi N of Trona, CA Nov 29 2008 21:14:09 UTC 35.970 -117.327 14406196
3.9 14.4 mi N of Trona, CA Nov 25 2008 04:11:36 UTC 35.972 -117.328 14405360

Originally posted by stikkinikki
I wonder if some new detection technique is recording what used to be unrecorded? I guess I would blame global warming and the Earth rebounding from being compressed under the weight of glaciers and maybe the ripples from that adjustment through out the world.

Maybe its a HAARP weapon or something like that. Not really sure how antennas can move ginormous blocks of earth enough for resettling.

Graphs go up and down and 100 years is a blink of the eye geologically speaking. Not too worried, as if there would be any point to that.

Normally I would be "Holy Cow!" but considering technological advancement over the past 10-20 years is huge along with the fact that 100 years is really not even a blink of an eye for data like this there is a chance that it is a normal cycle say over a thousand years.

For example if more and more pressure and tension build up in the earth over time and there is a large release at the same time then the years in between that release and the next one would show very little activity as it takes time for all the plates to build up pressure and tension again.

It's too bad we aren't able to have a 1000 year graph to base it on because over a 1000 years and it showed the same as this graph I would be a little more worried.

Edit: I agree with the above poster I quoted hence the quote

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Darthorious]

Is it possible this is a form of seizmic warfare going on. I saw a post recently, about some patterned seizmic activity in the North Pole and it was possible nuclear testings of some type. I grew up in Vegas my whole life and there has been recorded over a 1000 testings. Whats even more interesting is how many uppper atmosperic nuclear testing that has been performed. And the media hype was that it was CFC's that burned a hole in our ozone layer in the 80's.

I'm with Blaine on this one. Show me this chart in ten or 15 years, then we'll see.....

This only goes from 1900.
And its only showing more quakes post 1900 because we have better technology and have kept better records
150-200 years ago there could have been more but we didn't know they happened or no one recorded them.

I agree that the frequency of quakes on this graph is probably more to do with development in technology.

I'd be confident in saying there will likely be a similar sudden growth when we look at statistics for information gathering, development of registering equipment, resources spent on monitoring and research, and even such basic things as global use of internet communication.

This graph has to be taken with a big leap of faith while considering all the other factors that make quake reporting and analysis more efficient in recent years.

That still doesn't cancel out the possibility that there has been a rise in number, there might have been. I just think this graph shows the bare bones of it without filtering for all eventualities affecting the resulting data.

And am I right in saying this was produced by people employed in this field? They are going to want to show evidence that keeps them in a job and gets them more funding, that's the way all these things go right?