reply to post by murkraz
Where do I begin? I have answered this point so many times now in so many different places that I can't remember where! For once Fox News are
First you need to arm yourself with my report for 2010
2010 to the preceding decade. (You can also download a PDF version from there). Be aware that the figures are slightly different, for example 21 Mag 7
and the reason is that for many months after the event they 'tinker' with the figures. That report was done within 2 days of the year end which is
hindsight was probably not such a good idea. The correct value for Mag 7 in 2010 is 22. (muzzy will not agree with this but I am just quoting
USGS/NEIC/ANSS and not al the rest. I think his figure is higher. You could do worse than to look at his Major
You can also view the original ATS thread for it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
The average energy in Exajoules for the eleven year period is 13.3, and 2010 is only just above that at 14.3. This is dwarfed by 2000 which was
In fact in the energy release rankings 2010 is a second division team being only 7th highest out of 11 or if you prefer ranking 5th behind 2009, 2007,
2002 and 2000.
You will also find a ton of graphs and stuff in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now, by the time you have waded through all that lot you will probably think that I agree that earthquakes are on the increase. You would be right
This, rather like the graphs that compare 1975 onwards (see below) is not even accurate since the figures are small compared to 1960 which I will come
to in a moment.
The stats he uses are ridiculous. He takes absolutely no account of Japan in his numbers, and his statistical comparisons are peculiar. Why does he
compare pairs of years? Most odd.
I have said it a dozen time, Japan was a unique event in recent historical time. It was not anticipated by anyone and it has doubled the number of
quakes in 2011 in the mag 6 bracket.
(I am having some severe problems with image uploads just at the moment.) This is an older version showing energy and counts from 1960 to 2010
I also have somewhere from 1900 to 2010 but this one 1930 to 2010 should suffice.
Ah found my 1900 to 2010 graph
The graphs illustrate that 2010 - and even 2011 - are not the major players against 1960. Whilst Japan and Banda Aceh are up there, Chile is the
To cut a long story short (and I could make it much longer but I have to go out) yes currently earthquakes are on the increase by comparison to two or
so decades before, but not to the 1905/60 decades. The incidence of mega-quakes is cyclical and MAY be related to the 55 year sun cycle since it seems
to coincide but I have not have time to complete that study.
Seek out New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 60, September, 2011 - in fact you can download it and other from
. This news letter which came out in September appears to confirm my ~55 year cycle.
IF this is correct then we MAY have just passed through the top of the cycle and expect one mega-quake in the next 2 years of so of around 8.5 and
then slide back into another 30 or so years of relative
quiet before we ramp up towards the top of the next peak around 2040/2050 ish.
By the way as you may have gathered plain NUMBERS just don't hack it for me. It is all about energy.
reply to post by radpetey
At your service Sir!
reply to post by Gridrebel
The only one I've found is this, but it isn't super specific.
No, it is not and I could tell you where it comes from as it is an erroneous graph that I know well. That graph shows quakes since the real quiet
spot, and from a time since which there have been about 4000 stations added! Yes it has gone up but only if you ignore all the reasons! See above.
edit on 15/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)