Magnitude 7.7 Earthquake Hits India

Magnitude 7.7 Earthquake Hits India

earthquake.usgs.gov

Magnitude 7.7 - NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA REGION
2010 June 12 19:26:50 UTC

Earthquake Details
Magnitude 7.7
Date-Time

* Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 19:26:50 UTC
* Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 01:26:50 AM at epicenter

Location 7.702°N, 91.975°E
Depth 35 km (21.7 miles) set by location program
Region NICOBAR ISLAND

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow another huge quake! Only 95miles from Mohean, Nicobar Islands, India. I don't know how this is going to turn out, but a 7.7 is huge, and this constant supply of earthquakes from mother nature is really hurting us badly this year.

I will update once more information is provided, anyone else is welcome to add their own information as well.

earthquake.usgs.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)

there's a tsunami alert in the surrounding area I'll keep my eyes on it. p.s the msm in my country is to busy reporting the world cup.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by danielhanson420]

Originally posted by highlyoriginal

Wow another huge quake! Only 95miles from Mohean, Nicobar Islands, India. I don't know how this is going to turn out, but a 7.7 is huge, and this constant supply of earthquakes from mother nature is really hurting us badly this year.

(visit the link for the full news article)

As opposed to the constant supply of earthquakes from mother nature every other year. Honestly, read more of that USGS site you're linking:

Earthquake Facts and Statistics

We got more earthquakes in this range last year, and we're now, halfway through the year, at about half the average for this range of quake.

But hey, what the heck. I'll join in. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Hope it doesn't trigger a Tsunami

reply to post by Zelun


I'm not saying the sky is falling but some of those numbers are significantly higher than average, since 2007 mainly.

Magnitude Average Annually based on average since 1900
8 and higher = 1
7 - 7.9 = 15
6 - 6.9 = 134
5 - 5.9 = 1319
4 - 4.9 = 13,000



2007 8+ mag is four times normal; 2007 6-6.9 mag is 133% of normal; 2007 5-5.9 mag is more than 1 and a half times above average.


[edit on 12-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by Zelun
As opposed to the constant supply of earthquakes from mother nature every other year. Honestly, read more of that USGS site you're linking:

Earthquake Facts and Statistics

We got more earthquakes in this range last year, and we're now, halfway through the year, at about half the average for this range of quake.

But hey, what the heck. I'll join in. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Did I ever mention anything about some doomsday prophecy here? All I was saying is that the damage this year has been terrible. Do you not agree? Many people have died, as so in other years as well, that is all I was trying to say... way to quote me and take the words I typed out of context

reply to post by Thermo Klein


No offense to you, but you are showing 9.5 years worth of statistical analysis for the 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and then claim that recent activity is "higher" than usual. Ever taken a statistics course? You should!

P.S. Where is the source for ANY of this information?

Magnitude Average Annually based on average since 1900

[edit on 12-6-2010 by Aggie Man]

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

No offense to you, but you are showing 9.5 years worth of statistical analysis for the 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and then claim that recent activity is "higher" than usual. Ever taken a statistics course? You should!

Well no offense to you but he has shown the average quake activity since 1900 and squared it up against the activity since 2000. And I'd like to know where he or I could get ahold of earthquake records for 4.5 billion years, got any links?

Originally posted by FermiFlux

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

No offense to you, but you are showing 9.5 years worth of statistical analysis for the 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and then claim that recent activity is "higher" than usual. Ever taken a statistics course? You should!

Well no offense to you but he has shown the average quake activity since 1900 and squared it up against the activity since 2000. And I'd like to know where he or I could get ahold of earthquake records for 4.5 billion years, got any links?

Yeah, you're right...I'm sorry. OMG let's all freak out then...

The EQ activity is within the statistical norms...but hey, let's jump on the bandwagon with someone whom hasn't really proven anything...I can certainly tell it's summertime and the gullible school kids have idle hands.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by FermiFlux

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

No offense to you, but you are showing 9.5 years worth of statistical analysis for the 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and then claim that recent activity is "higher" than usual. Ever taken a statistics course? You should!

Well no offense to you but he has shown the average quake activity since 1900 and squared it up against the activity since 2000. And I'd like to know where he or I could get ahold of earthquake records for 4.5 billion years, got any links?

Yeah, you're right...I'm sorry. OMG let's all freak out then...

The EQ activity is within the statistical norms...but hey, let's jump on the bandwagon with someone whom hasn't really proven anything...I can certainly tell it's summertime and the gullible school kids have idle hands.

You dont need to be snide about it. You could simply say "i disagree because its within the statistical norms" but instead you seemingly try to make enemies out of those who differ in opinion. Sad really, especially from someone who claims to be so intelligent. Maybe you need more wisdom to see the error in your ways.

From my perspective reporting on this type of thing seems to have risen recently giving the impression of more activity. With the numbers stated here, it is higher, but its not dramatic enough for me to warrant any kind of serious worry.
The earth has a cycle, we don't know it well enough to make predictions that are within the realm of reason. All we can do is enjoy the ride and document our findings for future generations to dissect.
Letting the MSM dictate your research patterns seems to me to be the one sure fire way to ensure they get exactly what they want...

[edit on 12-6-2010 by EspyderMan]

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by FermiFlux

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

No offense to you, but you are showing 9.5 years worth of statistical analysis for the 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and then claim that recent activity is "higher" than usual. Ever taken a statistics course? You should!

Well no offense to you but he has shown the average quake activity since 1900 and squared it up against the activity since 2000. And I'd like to know where he or I could get ahold of earthquake records for 4.5 billion years, got any links?

Yeah, you're right...I'm sorry. OMG let's all freak out then...

The EQ activity is within the statistical norms...but hey, let's jump on the bandwagon with someone whom hasn't really proven anything...I can certainly tell it's summertime and the gullible school kids have idle hands.

I did not state anywhere in my post that I am in agreement with him, I just pointed out he has a 110-year record not 9.5 years, and it's a bit difficult to pull up the record for the full 4.5 billion years .

I don't think we can know for sure if seismic activity is on the increase untill we see the average number of quakes for the next 5-7 years minimum. Although I do think we should keep an eye on the overall amount of natural disasters and that average has certainly increased over the last century. Or of course, at least the coverage and people affected has increased.

Originally posted by EspyderMan
....but instead you seemingly try to make enemies out of those who differ in opinion.

Who comes here to make friends

Sad really, especially from someone who claims to be so intelligent. Maybe you need more wisdom to see the error in your ways.

what's sad? calling it like I see it? Or disagreeing with fearmongers?

From my perspective reporting on this type of thing seems to have risen recently giving the impression of more activity.

Hmmm....more EQ monitors in place than ever in past history....endless media outlets to report it....actually beginning to pay attention to something that some of us have followed for decades...

With the numbers stated here

what numbers? the ones that have no source? The ones that claim trends since 1900 and then only show the stats starting in 2000...

Deny Ignorance much?

[edit on 12-6-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Aggie Man


That information is from the ONE source we've been using for the whole thread, but it's here: USGS Earthquake Facts

You jumped a little too quickly on your insult in my opinion...
Comparing one year to an average of 110 is pretty standard procedure.

Since the Richter Scale was invented in the 1900s I'm not sure your argument applies anyhow...

But, since this has turned into a huge mud-slinging and name-calling match maybe you should check out what statistical significance is and what standard deviation means....

wrong side of the bed much?



[edit on 12-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by highlyoriginal

Magnitude 7.7 Earthquake Hits India

earthquake.usgs.gov

Magnitude 7.7 - NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA REGION
2010 June 12 19:26:50 UTC

Earthquake Details
Magnitude 7.7
Date-Time

* Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 19:26:50 UTC
* Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 01:26:50 AM at epicenter

Location 7.702°N, 91.975°E
Depth 35 km (21.7 miles) set by location program
Region NICOBAR ISLAND

(visit the link for the full news article)

I just checked the seismo on my computer and saw this ... I was about to start a thread when I spotted yours.

It seems to be quite shallow at 4 miles deep (?) so I guess that might mean damage at ground level ... I don't know anything about this area or how populated it it ... I hope the aftermath is not too bad ... guess we'll have to wait and see.

Sheesh I wish the naysayers would pipe down a bit they are becoming so tedious in their repetition. Wouldn't it be great if they found a new script ?

It's almost like they can't stand people having a different opinion to there own ... fact is we need to explore all posibilities ... they may be proven right ... but equally they could be proven wrong ... time will tell.

Woody

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

That information is from the ONE source we've been using for the whole thread, but it's here: USGS Earthquake Facts

You jumped a little too quickly on your insult in my opinion...
Comparing one year to an average of 110 is pretty standard procedure.

Since the Richter Scale was invented in the 1900s I'm not sure your argument applies anyhow...[edit on 12-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Well...at least we get a source...you really should source any work that is not your own.

Still, there is no statistical anomaly here....there have been much more active years in the past century...it's cyclic.

Start crying about the sky falling when there is something to prove that it is...

If you want to be serious about seismology, then treat the subject with some respect...and due diligence.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Who comes here to make friends

Who comes here to make enemies? Not me, i don't mind debating and discussing things maturely and without throwing about insults. You obviously do not. Your sharp tongue will only bring you grief.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
what's sad? calling it like I see it? Or disagreeing with fearmongers?

What's sad is how you react in a snide manner, as I obviously pointed out in my first post. Please try to keep up.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
what numbers? the ones that have no source? The ones that claim trends since 1900 and then only show the stats starting in 2000...

The numbers in this post...as i had said originally in my first post. Again, please try and keep up.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Deny Ignorance much?

I do not see ignorance here. I see someone posting about an Earthquake and shows a trend of increases that are debateable. Why do you need to get your panties in a bunch about it? Can you not be unemotional when your debating.

The point being, you can make your argument without belittling people and in return you will gain much more respect. Just some friendly advice.

Is there any more news on this earthquake, i do not have any news in my end of the world yet...

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

That information is from the ONE source we've been using for the whole thread, but it's here: USGS Earthquake Facts

You jumped a little too quickly on your insult in my opinion...
Comparing one year to an average of 110 is pretty standard procedure.

Since the Richter Scale was invented in the 1900s I'm not sure your argument applies anyhow...[edit on 12-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Well...at least we get a source...you really should source any work that is not your own.

Still, there is no statistical anomaly here....there have been much more active years in the past century...it's cyclic.

Start crying about the sky falling when there is something to prove that it is...

If you want to be serious about seismology, then treat the subject with some respect...and due diligence.

Do you have a personal issue with me??

Since I started my thread:

I'm not saying the sky is falling but some of those numbers are significantly higher than average, since 2007 mainly.

And I used numbers from the USGS, the ONLY source we've taked about in the whole thread, and I pointed out something that is roughly 3 standard deviations outside the norm...

you're simply wrong. I don't know what your problem is or why you're assigning it to me, but your argument is baseless and mis-quotes of me are rude.

Any tsunami warning yet?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Since the Richter Scale was invented in the 1900s I'm not sure your argument applies anyhow...

Obviously you need to wait a 4.5 billion years and then show us the statistics again - I don't know how Excel is going to handle 4.5 billion columns though - I certainly wouldn't want to load that sheet up.