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.

 

There is Nothing unusual about the Recent Earthquakes...here's why

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Paroxysm
 

Statistically there is nothing unusual about earthquake activity this year or in recent years. By selecting arbitrary time spans (like decades) statistics can be forced to show just about whatever you want them to. But when you start talking about events that happen between 0 and 3 times a year (8+ earthquakes) the statistics really don't mean much, it is not a large enough sample to find a trend.

Here is a chart showing the number of earthquakes of 8.0 and greater since 1900. Statistically it shows a decrease in the number of these extreme quakes but as I said, working with such small numbers does not provide much fodder for accurate trend determination.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for that Phage

I wonder what thereason behind the decrease could be?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Statistically speaking we know for a fact that the Sun was at it's highest activity for 60-100 years more than at any time in at least 1,000 years.

Statistically speaking we know for a fact that such increase in activity does increase the amount of earthquakes, and i gave several peer reviewed research papers to prove this fact.

Statistically speaking the mayor magnetic storms in the Sun have been increasing since the 1900s, and until about 4 years ago the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substancially to a point that the minimum magnetic disturbance in the Sun used to be until recently more disturbed than during years of maximum disturbance levels before 1900.


Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.





www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Since the Solar activity has slowed down to a crawl, and since the magnetic field of the Earth is weaker than at any time in thousands of years to a point that breaches in the magnetic field have been opening, all this allows for more cosmis rays, radiation, and more charged particles from outside the Solar System to enter the Solar System and is affecting the Earth as well as the other planets.

We shouldn't be seeing so many earthquakes, or magmatic activity, and it is only going to get worse either way whether the Sun's activity suddenly picks up, or it continues to be as slow as it is now. That is unless the magnetic field of the Earth strengthens again, but that is unlikely to occur.



[edit on 18-10-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The following graph is the actual level of earthquake occurrance from 1973-2006, and not what Phage is claiming it is.



earth.webecs.co.uk...

BTW, I do know that Phage's graph supposedly shows earthquakes of magnitude 8 from the 1900s, this graph I gave is from 1973-2006 and shows the overall increase in all earthquakes.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Like I said before, the advances in seismic technology and dramatic increase of seismic recording stations (especially in under developed countries) has exponentially exploded....kind of like the graph you just provided



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


What you are saying is an "assumption" which is wrong. Yes there has been an increase in seismic stations, but that doesn't change the fact that there were less earthquakes in the past, and we know this because of the overall activity of the Sun which does affect earthquakes, as well as magmatic activity, the weather, and the climate.

Read the peer reviewed research papers I gave, as they explain with more increased activity in the Sun there are more earthquakes, as well as magmatic activity, not to mention that it also affects the weather, and the climate.

With less solar activity, and with the heliosphere being weaker, not to mention the Earth's magnetic field being also weaker we are now more susceptible to the increased radiation, charged particles, plasma, interstellar dust etc which has been exponentially increasing, and all which affect the Earth, from it's weather, and climate down to magmatic, and seismic activity which will only increase.

Such fluctuations, up, or down do affect the Earth causing climate change, not to mention an increase in earthquake/magmatic activity. It only leveled out for a while, but since the magnetic field of the Earth continues getting weaker, and since more radiation, charged particles etc are entering the Solar System and affecting Earth, magmatic activity, earthquakes, as well as the weather, and climate will change for the worse.

Not to mention that the exponential increase in interstellar dust will continue to increase until 2012. This with the fact that the Sun's activity is at the lowest in at least 100 years we are facing possibly another LIA.

Yes we are in a unusual time, a time of many changes, and many of them won't be for good unfortunately.



[edited to add comments]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Here is a chart showing the number of earthquakes of 8.0 and greater since 1900.


LOL! Some bar graph without sources...did you create that yourself?

USGS seems not to agree with the data in that chart. Here is USGS info for Magnitude 8.0 and Greater Earthquakes Since 1900


According to USGS data, the year which we experienced the most 8.0 EQ's worldwide was....


..




..


...wait for it....





..



...2007!




According to USGS data the ONLY other year (besides 2007) which there were more than two 8.0 EQ's worldwide in a single year, was 1946 when there was three.


Again, in 2007 we saw more 8.0 EQ's worldwide in a single year, than ANY year since 1900.


[edit on 18-10-2009 by Paroxysm]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



Thanks for the information provided. I have often considered the effects of “galactic” influences on our Earth, but not researched due to time and interest. Apparently, others have. With that said, consider my spewings from the perspective of an “ignorant, in the ‘astro’-turf of ‘galactic’ influences”.

From some links provided to prevent having to return to previous pages:

Not dated, but later than quakes cited.
“It has been observed that some geo-physical parameter eg., Kp (planetary indices) and E-flux (electron flux) changes after the coronal mass ejection from the outer periphery of the sunspots. When the Kp (planetary indices) and E-flux (electron flux) changes suddenly it affects the environment of the earth. This phenomenon changes the thermosphere ionosphere atmosphere and lithosphere locally as well as globally. The response of the magnetosphere to interplanetary shocks or pressure pulses can result in sudden injections of energetic particles into the inner magnetosphere. It has been recorded that 36 hours before the occurrence of earthquake Kp values and E-flux increases drastically. After this increase sudden fall in Kp and E-fflux has been noticed before the earthquake and tsunami. The phenomenon was recorded before the Pakistan earthquake of 8th October 2005, Iran earthquake of 23rd February 2005,Sumatra earthquake on 26th December 2004 and Gujarat earthquake of 26th January 2001. Similar observations were recorded in other parts of the world.”
“Deleneation of active faults by seismic microzonation coupled with sunspot activity studies has the proven potential for the triggering of an earthquake in space and time.”

Would it be safe to say that should a CME occur, a seismic event will follow within 36 hours? I believe there was a CME in the time frame of the recent American Samoa event, and those that followed shortly thereafter. Is there data available to support the premise stated in the link?

November, 2003
“Both coronal holes and CMEs are monitored by satellite-borne and ground-based instruments, which makes it possible to predict periods of enhanced seismic risk. The geoeffectiveness of solar wind from a coronal hole only depends on the position of the hole relative to the Earth, and for the CMEs an additional factor is their speed. It has been recently found that a useful tool in identifying the population of geoeffective CMEs is the detection of long-wavelength (decameter-hectometer) type II solar radio bursts, as the CMEs associated with them are much faster and wider than average.”

From our friend Google:
“A network of sites round the globe each measures its local geomagnetic activity of the atmosphere. The different locations means the range of values for each station varies. Each site's readings is scaled onto the Kp Scale of 0 - 9. These scales vary from site to site, but 9 on two different sites is always a high activity level. Higher latitudes (eg Norway) are more active than lower ones (eg Sahara). From these data a number of other useful indices are calculated, including aa, am and Ap.”
A similar explanation was found at NOAA/ Space weather:

www.swpc.noaa.gov...

I gather these are earth based monitors. The aa, am, and Ap indices are generated by massaging the Kp data, essentially breaking it down into differing hourly segments, and/or geographical locations. Using weighted averages from the various locations derives the value, and anomalies can be found. Restated: The magnetic field of the Earth is being measured constantly, and these measurements are manipulated to obtain the various K values.

The “cosis” link mentions the SOHO satellite in reference to Kp increases, but does not indicate values, nor specify origin. Any additional information would be appreciated.

I can readily agree that fluctuations in the magnetic field may be utilized as precursors of quakes. I do not understand the link to “cause”. The mechanism for producing the magnetic field, as it is understood, is the fluid motion within the molted core, described as a dynamo process.

From Wiki: “In order to maintain the magnetic field against ohmic decay (which would occur for the dipole field in 20,000 years) the outer core must be convecting. Convection is likely some combination of thermal and compositional convection. The mantle controls the rate at which heat is extracted from the core. Heat sources include gravitational energy released by the compression of the core, gravitational energy released by the rejection of light elements (probably sulphur, oxygen, or silicon) at the inner core boundary as it grows, latent heat of crystallization at the inner core boundary, and radioactivity of potassium, uranium and thorium[1].”

I submit that the anomalous K values might be produced by the intense heat caused by the pressures involved when the massive “plates” move against each other, more so than a “galactic” increase in magnetic energy. Though I do not rule out the possibility of a contribution by outside forces, it is doubtful, to me, that such force could be attributed to the “cause”. The magnetic field strength measured at the earth’s surface is 30,000-60,000 nano-Tesla(n-T), and added to that the normal, typical 2-5 n-T supplied by the solar wind, does not appear to be sufficient to provide “cause”. I am not privy to any data that show a marked increase to that which would support a “galactic” cause of earthquakes, as the linked information ( just the free stuff), did not provide such data.

I readily admit that discussion of “electron flux” is way over my head, and is apt to stay there. I have done a cursory search, and readings, however, not enough time on my part, and too little “surface” information is available in layman terms to spark my continued interest. If you can provide links, or information of an explanatory nature, in layman terms, it would be appreciated.

A question I have is “Since the papers have been published, has this information been used to successfully predict a seismic event of any magnitude?” If so, why have the MSM not forewarned of such an event?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Paroxysm
 

Right. I often invent data.

Source

[edit on 10/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

The increase in numbers of seismographs worldwide and the increase in their sensitivity means that small earthquakes (less than 6.0) are detected more often than they were in the past, it does not mean that there are more of them.

Here is a graph showing earthquakes of 6.0 and greater.


Here is a graph showing earthquakes of 7.0 and greater.


Here is a graph showing earthquakes of 7.0 and greater since 1900.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 

I don't believe there is a decrease. As I said, when you are dealing with such small numbers of occurrences it's not possible to reliably track a trend, up or down.

[edit on 10/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thats exactly right

Now that we have underwater acoustics to, we are able to pick up a greater number of underwater earthquakes, which are obviosuly not always felt



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Oz how would the plate techtonics figure in when it comes to centrally located quakes, such as around the New Madrid area and other areas nearby it that do not have any faultlines that are known?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Never Mind

[edit on 19/10/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



Where abouts is the New Madrid area?

Your kidding right?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Oz how would the plate techtonics figure in when it comes to centrally located quakes, such as around the New Madrid area and other areas nearby it that do not have any faultlines that are known?


The New Madrid fault lines earthquakes are whats know as intraplate earthquakes, which occur within a tectonic plate, rather than towards the edge of it.

It is thought that intraplate earthquakes occur near places where failed rifts have occured. By failed rifts I mean, where a plate has started to tear, but never actually broken, causing a weakness or brittleness in the earths crust.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
quake.wr.usgs.gov...


“Scientists estimate that the probability of a magnitude 6 to 7 earthquake occurring in this seismic zone within the next 50 years is higher than 90%. Such an earthquake could hit the Mississippi Valley at any time. “



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Paroxysm
 

You are quite right -- of course it was Chile. My apologies. What can I say? It was a dumb mixup on my behalf. Such a quake off Argentina would be unlikely in the extreme.

I must also apologise for not citing the Alaska/Aleutian zone and I thank you for pointing it out, especially as the 1964 quake there was a megathrust (subduction) quake and there is always the potential for another.

At present, I still feel the area for the greatest potential concern is off the coast of Oregon -- at least in respect of possible catastrophic effects on a major scale on a human population. But as I say, I appreciate the corrections and your detailed post.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by Paroxysm
 

You are quite right -- of course it was Chile. My apologies. What can I say? It was a dumb mixup on my behalf. Such a quake off Argentina would be unlikely in the extreme.


Actually its not that dumb. I believe the southern tip of Argentina is affected by the South American plate and the one to the south of it....The Scotia plate I think.

[edit on 19/10/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


But it's not a "hot spot" for "BIG ONES" (8.0+ EQ's). Here's a map of where the "BIG ONE'S" have hit since 1900:




There have been none off of the "tip" of South America, only in and along the edge of Chile.




top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join