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.

 

Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase? - USGS Says........

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
This is the official line from USGS on their website.

"We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.

A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more than 8,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by electronic mail, internet and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate earthquakes more rapidly and to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years. The NEIC now locates about 20,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 50 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in the environment and natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes.

According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year."

source: earthquake.usgs.gov...




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Ok, so here are my questions....

1) Since the early 1900's, how many new seismographs have been placed around the globe compared to the number that are removed or decommissioned?

There must be a graph somewhere that shows the increase over time, which I'm sure also shows a plateau of sorts towards the 90's, when we stopped adding at such a rapid pace.

2) What is the detection rate of these new seismographs? (They may only detect 1 quake a year, which skews results)

3) If what they are saying is true, then 7.0 quakes are irrelevant and is meant to mislead the reader. Quakes are "felt" above a 4 in most cases, so an increase in 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 quakes would be an increase overall. This is where I believe they are down-playing the fact that people have noticed the increase.

I'm not asking the OP to answer these questions, but they show how the story is full of holes and misleading data. I'd love to see the USGS answer them with charts and real, verifiable data. Show the RAW data collected over the years, and then show a graph with real numbers reflecting the raw data. That would be impressive and I'm sure would show people that the increase is in fact, REAL, which is why they haven't published such graphs.

~Namaste




edit on 14-2-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


There you go.Just what the doctor ordered.....

qvsdata.wordpress.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


If you look at the data one can conclude that while more seismographs were not commissioned in the 90s, it looks like between 1990 and 2000 previous equipment was upgraded with more sensitive equipment. In my own statistical analysis I showed that there has not been an increase in 5.0-9.0 earthquakes over the past 20 years. However, there are significantly more minor quakes that are recorded. While this could be due to an actual increase in the number of minor quakes, considering the technological advances made in the 90s I'd say the more likely conclusion is that we simply had more sensitive instruments to measure these quakes that in the past would have gone unnoticed.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
If it's fairly constant then how come were not "constantly" rebuilding damaged cities and providing shelter for the millions or thousands of displaced people every year? how come yearly were not seeing people die en mass like we have for the past 2yrs alone? how come before 2010 it was rare to have back to back devastating earthquakes? like these numbers here:

New Zealand earthquake: state of emergency declared (2010)
http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/7981518/New-Zealand-earthquake-state-of-emergency-declared.html

China earthquake kills hundreds in Qinghai
news.bbc.co.uk...

Dozens dead from earthquake in Turkey
edition.cnn.com...

Hundreds were still missing after Monday's 10-foot wave spawned by a massive quake struck the remote Mentawi islands off western Sumatra
www.foxnews.com...

Haiti Earthquake of 2010
www.nytimes.com...

1.5 Million Displaced After Chile Quake
www.nytimes.com...

(The above is just in 2010 alone)



new topics

top topics
 
5

log in

join