Volcanos on the rise?

I was wondering if there is data available on the amount of volcanic activity on yearly basis and I came across this site... Now I tend to be skeptical since this site is in my opinion not proven to contain exact data but for the ease of discussion we should accept the data presented as true except when someone knows something more then I do, in that case please correct any information wich is wrong.

The source for the information was taken from this site:
www.infoplease.com...

When Adding up the numbers presented and categorizing the number of volcanic eruptions according to year you get the following:

1995: 5
1996: 8
1997: 9
1998: 8
1999: 4
2000: 10
2001: 6
2002: 2
2003: 10
2004: 7
2005: 2

now this is where it gets interesting.

2006: 30
2007: 23
2008: 6
2009: 6
2010: 27 of wich 19 are ongoing (remember we're only in may!)

These volcano's are with recent and/or ongoing activity. Volcano's erupting in 1995 and dying out a few days after are not listed... For exampl eyjkjafjuell or whatever its name is wouldn't be listed on this site 20 years from now...
I dont like sensasionalistic thinking but when I calculated the percentages it showed that from 2006-2010 there was an average yearly increase of 283%. This includes the years 2008 & 2009 wich dragged the % down. This shows a very significant inrease in the number of eruptions in a years time...

There is also this page showing disastrous earthquakes... these numbers IMO reflect poorly wether earthquakes are on the rise but what can be seen is that earthquakes take more casualties more frequently.

www.infoplease.com...

I've seen alot of posters saying this is normal behaviour for our earth but the numbers are definetely saying something else... So is there anybody who can show that there is indeed no significant increase of activity in our earth's crust?
Also note the amount of gaps present in the disasters mentioned by year in wich they happened from 1988 and down and subsequently 1988 and up.. almost no gap present in the upward numbers. This can offcourse be explained with population growth but still... quite impressive..

In respect to fairness I'm gonna include the following link giving a researchers POV on this. Note that the tekst is not conclusive but suggestive...

www.volcano.si.edu...

[edit on 29-5-2010 by faceoff85]

If you go to the page they present as their source you can see that at the present there are 50 active volcanoes and that from those, 10 became active this year.

From the same source, if you change the date back to 2009 you can see that there were 74 active volcanoes and 31 became active that year.

Going back to 2008, there were 85 active volcanoes that year, with 46 erupting that year, so I don't see anything unusual there.

I'd like to know why too, while trying to avoid saying the 'n' word (Nemesis) despite the fact that binary or trinary star systems exists in 70 percent of the stars in our galaxy, the jump from a high of about 10 to 30 and a low of 2 to 6 is very noticeable. Something is effecting the Earth's mechanisms.

reply to post by star in a jar


Exactly my point... I will check again on that active volcanos thing the previous poster mentioned but even so... those numbers are quite dramatical without the active volcano's. It definetely gives off the vibe as if "something"is happening... maybe after checking up things look a little less doom and gloom but I think we're tretching things when saying this is "normal"

www.volcano.si.edu...

so to my understanding the volcano's listed are listed under the year when they exhibited the highest amount of activity? if so that site draws an even grimmer picture then the numbers I presented...
[edit on 29-5-2010 by faceoff85]


[edit on 29-5-2010 by faceoff85]

reply to post by ArMaP
Hmm, I'm confused, the numbers are different, is there any difference between active volcanoes and erupting volcanos?

reply to post by star in a jar


Sorry for the mix-up with the names.

I should have said that those volcanoes were the ones with ongoing eruptions and the ones that had their eruptions started that year, so it should have been something like this:

50 volcanoes with ongoing eruptions, 10 of which started in 2010

74 volcanoes with ongoing eruptions, 31 of which started in 2009

85 volcanoes with ongoing eruptions, 46 of which started in 2010

An active volcano is one that has had eruptions with some frequency, a dormant volcano is one that has had one eruption know in historic times but that it's not active for a long time and an extinct volcano is a volcano that has not any know eruption during human existence.

This "classification" gives only an idea of the volcano's activity, a volcano that is thought to be extinct may become active at any time.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by star in a jar

 

Sorry for the mix-up with the names.

I should have said that those volcanoes were the ones with ongoing eruptions and the ones that had their eruptions started that year, so it should have been something like this:

50 volcanoes with ongoing eruptions, 10 of which started in 2010

74 volcanoes with ongoing eruptions, 31 of which started in 2009

85 volcanoes with ongoing eruptions, 46 of which started in 2010

An active volcano is one that has had eruptions with some frequency, a dormant volcano is one that has had one eruption know in historic times but that it's not active for a long time and an extinct volcano is a volcano that has not any know eruption during human existence.

This "classification" gives only an idea of the volcano's activity, a volcano that is thought to be extinct may become active at any time.

I'm sorry but I cant really deduct from this post wether this shows volcanic activity is indeed on the rise or if we are hyping up a dead bunny here... I've added a link with the thoughts given on the site's source on this, aparently researchers in general believe volcanic activity is pretty constant. But they have not included the last decade wich according to the first link given does show an increase.... I dont know... To me its not conclusive yet... I do agree that its wise to rmain skeptical on this but my impression so far is that there might actually be an increase as of the last couple of years...

To get an accurate idea of what's normal and what isn't I think a period of twenty years isn't long enough.

Global Cooling is on its way then.

Volcanoes are a natural version of chemtrails. the materials spewed into the upper atmosphere blocks the heating from the sun thus cooling the temps globally.


this is good news for us texans. im getting tired of 3 months of 100+ degree weather during the summertime. mid nineties would be excellent.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by star in a jarEdited quote..a volcano that is thought to be extinct may become active at any time.

I believe in some cases like Edinburgh where there is an extinct volcano from millions of years ago that the land (mantel) has moved far away from the lava tubes so that the volcano could never erupt again because it it no longer connected. The same way chains of Islands are formed over millions of years by volcanic eruption forming land then tectonic plates move and the next eruption creates a new island until a chain of islands are made. en.wikipedia.org...

Like the castle rock on which Edinburgh Castle is built, it was formed by an extinct volcano system of Carboniferous age (approximately 350 million years old), which was eroded by a glacier moving from west to east during the Quaternary (approximately the last two million years), exposing rocky crags to the west and leaving a tail of material swept to the east.[2] This is how the Salisbury Crags formed and became basalt cliffs between Arthur's Seat and the city centre. From some angles, Arthur's Seat resembles a lion couchant. Two of the several extinct vents make up the 'Lion's Head' and the 'Lion's Haunch'.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by tarifa37]

Originally posted by Spinoza73
To get an accurate idea of what's normal and what isn't I think a period of twenty years isn't long enough.

What would you suggest? The information presented is IMO most likely not accurate to the dot but the point I tried to adress was the evident increase in 2006, 2007 and especially 2010... It looks as though there is AT LEAST a bit of an increase from average numbers... I know to make it more precise it would be best to have about 1000-5000 years worth of data but unfortunately we cant get that.. anyone able to contribute anything to these numbers would be greatly apreciated.

Trust me I'd rather see this debunked then confirmed... I've got 2 little kids who are gonna need this planet longer then I do... same goes for most of us...

Nothing like a chart to compare those numbers.

After some minutes working with that site and Excel, this is the result:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/a2cec2391f226372.gif[/atsimg]

It looks like there's a real growth in activity, but too small to be significant. And it also looks like 2010 does not have as many new eruptions as previous years.

reply to post by ArMaP


Nice work... what numbers did you use? So in the end it looks like we're a bit declining with activity... well thats a good thing. Guess we'll just sit it out as always...

a star for the effort

reply to post by faceoff85


I used the numbers from this site.

Looking again at the chart it looks like we have had more eruptions going on because they last longer, not because we're having more new eruptions per year.