Strong Earthquakes Increasing. Disrupting Planet's Magnetic Field?

reply to post by PuterMan


Of course it won't keep me quiet! Surely you dream.

I am a bit confused by your numbers - they just don't seem right. I hope you will explain the apparent discrepancies. ....Your graphs show the most activity in 1963. The big quake that year was a mag 6.9 in Skopje, Macedonia. It seems far less serious the 2004 mag 9.2 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake for example. ....And you're right - this year's mag 9. Japan quake with it's still ongoing aftershocks, many over mag 6, will totally change the energy distribution on any graph.

The earthquake, which measured 6.1 on the moment magnitude scale[1] (equivalent to 6.9 on the Richter scale)[7][6], occurred on July 26, 1963 at 4:17 am UTC[2] (5:17 am local time)[6][3] in Skopje, Socialist Republic of Macedonia, then part of SFR Yugoslavia (present-day Republic of Macedonia). The tremor lasted for 20 seconds[6][7] and was felt mostly along the Vardar River Valley[7]. There were also smaller aftershocks until 5:43.[8]

According to wikipedia, the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake was the 5th deadliest in Earth's history, specs as follows:

Date 00:58:53, December 26, 2004 (UTC)
Magnitude 9.1–9.3 Mw
Depth 30 km (19 mi)

(There aren't any 1963 quakes on the list at all.)

reply to post by soficrow


You are muddling up the two graphs. The one with the most activity in 1963 is the Japan region only. 1960 was the most activity and that of course was the 9.5 in Chile. You can download the centennial catalogue from USGS and check my figures if you wish, and by the way the Japan Tokohu quake will actually not show any more than Banda Aceh in 2004.

I decided to take that list back to 1930 and that is really fascinating. The trend for magnitude and magnitude per quake is flat - completely flat and it is as obvious as the nose on ones fact that 1960 puts all others to shame,

I only went from 1930 since that is when I consider instrumentation to be good enough for a comparison.



I think the point is adequately proven. By the way it is energy against numbers not energy against magnitude. People quote the number of quakes but as you can now see from 1930 the average has only changed by 6 per year of over 6.5 magnitude and you can bet that there are some 6.5 ones not recorded in those early years so the chances are very good that it has not changed at all.

Edit: Not sure where you are getting your data but the largest quake in 1963 was an 8.6 Mw

1963,8,15,17,25,8.34,-13.742,-69.332,552.1,118,225,7.7,Mw,22387,Provincia de Sandia, Peru
1963,10,13,5,17,53.35,44.77,149.798,13.4,221,191,8.6,Mw,501187,Kuril Islands
1963,10,20,0,53,10.9,44.772,150.563,27.9,222,166,7.9,Mw,44668,Kuril Islands
1963,12,18,0,30,2.58,-24.776,-176.52,35,171,263,7.7,Mw,22387,South of the Fiji Islands

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3c361360076.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by PuterMan


Okay. Backing up now. Can you address the claims in the source article directly? (You're focusing on energy, the article focuses on numbers of major quakes.)

the recent increase in major earthquakes, which are defined as above 6 on the Richter magnitude scale. Japan's earthquake was a 9.0.

Scientists have been tracking these powerful quakes for well over a century and it's unlikely that they have missed any during at least the last 60 years.

The U.S. Geological Survey says there were 1,085 major earthquakes in the 1980s. This increased in the 1990s by about 50 per cent to 1,492 and to 1,611 from 2000 to 2009. Last year, and up to and including the Japanese quake, there were 247 major earthquakes.

There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan. In the 1980s, there were four mega-quakes, six in the 1990s and 13 in the last decade. So far this decade there have been two. This increase, however, could be temporary.

reply to post by soficrow


Sorry but I have to go to bed as it is 4am.

I will rip that stupid article to pieces tomorrow if you really want me to.

Just consider this however - how can the number of earthquakes matter when the energy is logarithmic?

A 6 is 63 Terajoules, a 7 is 1995 Terajoules. How does it make sense to count them as numbers?

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by soficrow

 

Sorry but I have to go to bed as it is 4am.

I will rip that stupid article to pieces tomorrow if you really want me to.

Aww. You're so sweet. Yes, I do, I do want you to rip that article apart.

Just consider this however - how can the number of earthquakes matter when the energy is logarithmic?

Because the earth is a complicated, intricate, complex system and where something happens, and when, is at least as important as how much? ..Then there are the questions of why did it happen, and what exactly was it that happened.

A 6 is 63 Terajoules, a 7 is 1995 Terajoules. How does it make sense to count them as numbers?

See above. ...But I do think you are making an extremely important point - the amount of energy involved is important. The questions are how exactly is it important and - does the energy-release factor override (all) other factors?

reply to post by soficrow


I will get back to you later with regard to the article and other points.

In the meantime you might appreciate this.

reply to post by soficrow

Severe earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and now Japan have experts around the world asking whether the world's tectonic plates are becoming more active -and what could be causing it.

Your quoted source

First I am not aware of experts who are asking this. I am well aware of many media outlets and pseudo-experts asking this, but not once have I seen a credible source making this statement.

Some scientists theorize that the sudden melting of glaciers due to man-made climate change is lightening the load on the Earth's surface, allowing its mantle to rebound upwards and causing plates to become unstuck.

These scientists point to the historical increase in volcanic and earthquake activity that occurred about 12,000 years ago when the glaciers that covered most of Canada in an ice sheet several kilometres thick suddenly melted.

The result was that most of Canada's crust lifted -and is still rising.

Let me re-phrase that for you. Global warming 'scientists' are attempting to point a finger at AGW as the source of the perceived (but not factual) increase in earthquakes to further their agenda.

Geologists have long been aware of the effects of isostatic rebound which did indeed cause an increase in activity 12,000 years ago. What really surprises me is that they have not blamed that on AGW yet. No doubt they are looking for a way.

Scientists have discovered that the accelerated melting of the Greenland ice sheet over the last 10 years already is lifting the southeastern part of that island several millimetres every year.

Whoopy dog pooh. And the point is? Well the point is that they are trying to blame AGW for an increase in earthquakes because the glaciers are melting and the land is lifting. The problem is that there is naff all in the way of earthquakes in Greenland. Here is the past 365 days:

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-03-06 20:50:32, 73.060, 5.998, 4.6, 34.8, Greenland Sea
2011-03-06 20:50:27, 73.060, 5.870, 4.4, 2.0, Greenland Sea
2011-03-04 11:16:45, 73.123, 5.886, 4.7, 13.6, Greenland Sea
2010-10-29 18:28:32, 79.340, 3.760, 3.2, 10.0, Greenland Sea
2010-05-20 02:55:56, 73.460, 8.740, 4.3, 2.0, Greenland Sea
2010-05-16 20:23:04, 73.472, 7.225, 4.8, 29.8, Greenland Sea
2010-05-16 16:39:33, 73.407, 7.305, 5.2, 10.0, Greenland Sea
2010-05-16 15:29:02, 73.427, 7.496, 5.0, 10.0, Greenland Sea
2010-05-16 06:18:34, 73.460, 8.410, 4.2, 2.0, Greenland Sea
2010-05-02 09:17:27, 73.802, 8.719, 4.6, 10.0, Greenland Sea
2010-04-06 23:50:23, 73.775, 8.793, 5.3, 10.0, Greenland Sea

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3c361360076.jpg[/atsimg]

Mm, well that's another global warming theory down the drain then.

Other scientists, however, believe tectonic movements similar to the one that caused the Japanese quake are too deep in the Earth to be affected by the pressure releases caused by glacier melt.

These scientists theorize that glacier melts could cause shallower quakes.

Andrew Hynes, a tectonics expert at Montreal's McGill University, said the issue is not so much the load shift on the Earth's crust, but rather the increased fluid pressure in the fault that lubricates the rock, allowing the plate to slide.

"All earthquakes, except those produced by volcanic activity, are essentially the unsticking of faults," he said. In other words, if you pump fluid into a fault, it can reduce the friction and allow the rock to slide.

Could the stress transfers and the added melt from glaciers inject more fluid into the rocks, creating earthquakes?

Well this has possibilities except for the last sentence although there is some evidence that rain can have an effect. (How can the melt water be 'injected'? I have serious doubts as to whether this was uttered by an 'expert'. I smell journalistic licence here.) But where are the earthquakes?

He added that the decompression from melting glaciers could cause an increase in volcanic activity by releasing the liquid rock and its explosive potential.

Yes all the volcanoes in Greenland are going off because of this - NOT! Again I question the terminology. 'liquid rock'??

At the same time, the number and severity of earthquakes appear to have increased over the last 30 years in tandem with accelerating glacial melt.

Um have they? I think I have already proved this is not the case. Where is the data to back up this completely ludicrous statement?

Some experts claim that jump can be explained by the increased number of seismograph stations -more than 8,000 now, up from 350 in 1931 -allowing scientists to pinpoint earthquakes that would otherwise have been missed.

Yes there is definitely an element of truth in this for quakes under about 6.5 Magnitude.

Scientists have been tracking these powerful quakes for well over a century and it's unlikely that they have missed any during at least the last 60 years.

Well that is good news. At least the figures I produced in the posts above should be accurate then! (If you define major quakes as 6.0+ then this statement is supposition and unreliable. It is possibly valid for 6.5+)

The U.S. Geological Survey says there were 1,085 major earthquakes in the 1980s. This increased in the 1990s by about 50 per cent to 1,492 and to 1,611 from 2000 to 2009. Last year, and up to and including the Japanese quake, there were 247 major earthquakes.

There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan. In the 1980s, there were four mega-quakes, six in the 1990s and 13 in the last decade. So far this decade there have been two. This increase, however, could be temporary.

As I have demonstrated the number of quakes is not the important factor. Earthquakes are about the release of built up stress thus it is plain stupidity to be quoting numbers against stress levels. I have also shown that this nonsense using numbers for Japan is NOT borne out by energy release.

Let me give an example of their warped thinking.

Year 1, 2 x 6.6 and 1 x 7.8 = 3 in total
Year 2, 4 x 6.3, 5 x 6.6 and 1 x 6.9 = 10 in total

OMG there has been a massive increase of major quakes. There were 3 in year 1 and that has increased by 233% to 10 in year 2.

Oh yeah? Now let us look at the energy released in that, i.e. the amount of stress that has been relieved. We can even assume these all to be in the one area if you like.

Terajoules

6.6 501
6.6 501
7.8 31,623
Tot 32,625

6.3 178
6.3 178
6.3 178
6.6 501
6.6 501
6.6 501
6.6 501
6.6 501
6.9 1,413
Tot 4,452


That actually means that in year 2 the energy release was only 13% of the value in Year 1.

So say we are looking at a big fault like San Andreas. Which would you prefer?

OMG there has been a massive increase
Phew that is a relief, the energy was much less this year

The 7.8 may destroy a city where as the ones under 7 may not - depending on many other factors.

You might, depending on the circumstances, say "looks as if very little pressure was released in the second year. It could be building up."

How could you justify that on the numbers? Would anyone believe you if you said "Mm, there were many more major earthquakes the second year. Looks as if not much was happening. This could be a problem."

I have said it before, and I will say it again and continue saying it, the numbers are NOT significant.

Hynes said there is some evidence that one earthquake can snowball into another until the Earth's crust has adjusted to the new pressure transfers.

Typical bloody journalists. Got to have some doom. That really is a very poor way of stating this for a person who is supposed to be a tectonics expert. I would love to know what the leading question was that elicited that response, if indeed he did actually say that. It is also rather curious the term pressure transfers as we are talking about pressure release.

That article as far as I am concerned was full of disinformation and attempted sensationalism aimed directly at worrying the readership. Pretty typical of the press in other words.

reply to post by PuterMan


Obviously you are making an extremely important point - the amount of energy involved is important. My questions are: How exactly is it important? Does the energy-release factor override (all) other factors? Does a single release of energy relieve stress on the entire system, thus maintaining geophysical homeostasis, or might it trigger a cascade that upsets the current equilibrium?

...The source article focused on global warming - but I did NOT and do NOT. I think it's hooey too - have from the get-go - never buy into single cause-and-effect "explanations" in any field. But you keep going back to the global warming thing and ignoring my points and questions. ...I'm looking to understand a MUCH larger view than simple single cause-and-effect - call it geophysical complex systems theory if you like.

Just consider this however - how can the number of earthquakes matter when the energy is logarithmic?

Because the earth is a complicated, intricate, complex system and where something happens, and when, is at least as important as how much... ? ..Then there are the questions of why did it happen, what exactly was it that happened, and what kinds of cascades are conceivable?

A 6 is 63 Terajoules, a 7 is 1995 Terajoules. How does it make sense to count them as numbers?

See above.

...Your main assumption seems to be that one single release of energy relieves stress on the entire system - I'm wondering if it might not create stress elsewhere in the system (the butterfly-chaos thing). Your second assumption is based on the notion that there are and always will be only 7 primary tectonic plates, the secondary and tertiary plates are relatively unimportant, and no major rifts, fissures or other separations will occur to alter the current 'static' situation - I wonder if that's true.

...I am relieved to see that the Omari principle is holding, and the aftershocks from the Japan quake are decreasing as predicted.

...I am grateful for your patience, and yes, I am learning from you and appreciate your 'mentorship.' But I would learn more, faster if you would quit assuming I have an agenda that you need to counter and also, if you would stop dealing with me like some subject-to-panic blonde-bimbo. I'll be happy to send you a check for said services once we get on track here.




PS. I starred your post to muzzy, and your posts here too.

reply to post by soficrow

...I am grateful for your patience, and yes, I am learning from you and appreciate your 'mentorship.' But I would learn more, faster if you would quit assuming I have an agenda that you need to counter

I was not assuming you were into AGW, I was answering the article as you requested I should. As you have pointed out the article was into AGW. I am not assuming that you have any agenda, maybe a tendency to a more sensationalist outlook than me but I can live with that.

if you would stop dealing with me like some subject-to-panic blonde-bimbo. I'll be happy to send you a check for said services once we get on track here

Sorry? I have made no assumptions about you at all.

Does a single release of energy relieve stress on the entire system

Then further down

...Your main assumption seems to be that one single release of energy relieves stress on the entire system

Really. I don't remember saying that. As far as I can see you posed the question and then attributed it to me as a statement.

Your second assumption is based on the notion that there are and always will be only 7 primary tectonic plates, the secondary and tertiary plates are relatively unimportant, and no major rifts, fissures or other separations will occur to alter the current 'static' situation - I wonder if that's true.

I don't remember saying how many plates there were or mentioning anything about the importance of any of them.

In fact where did I make any of these assumptions? You do not even know what my thoughts are about plate tectonics as I have never stated them.

This started out with the notion that strong earthquakes are increasing, I say they are not and have provided what I believe to be reasonable evidence to suggest that my suppositions are valid.

Part of that analysis involves the suggestion that stress and the relief of stress are best thought of in terms of energy especially since the build up is so calculated I understand. Indeed from the movements measured by GPS it should be possible to calculate the potential stress on a system, but to then say we had 10 earthquakes so that relieved it is patently wrong.

Three quakes of around 6.6 are the equivalent of 1 x 6.9

6.55 422 TJ
6.6 501 TJ
6.6 501 TJ
1,424 TJ

6.9 1,413 TJ

This is why I am saying you cannot 'count' earthquakes. I have made no mention of plates or of a single release doing the trick, just that one bigger quake may relieve more stress than a number of slightly smaller ones in magnitude.

It is for this reason that a multitude of small quakes do nothing much to release the stress on a fault.

About 8,000 earthquakes of 4.3 magnitude are required to release the same amount of energy as one single 6.9 (Gigajoules for this example)

4.3 178 GJ
x 8,000
1,422,624 GJ


6.9 1,412,538 GJ

I am sorry but I really do have to leave this here for the time being. I appreciate the idea that I might be a 'mentor' but the reality is that I am not a Uni PhD, or a geology teacher, As I have always said I am just an ATS member with a great interest in the subject of earthquakes who did a college course in geology back in the past, the very distant past when tectonics was a new unaccepted idea and dinosaurs could be found in the local park let alone Jurassic Park.

reply to post by PuterMan


Thanks for your responses - sorry that you chose yet again to avoid the issues.

This started out with the notion that strong earthquakes are increasing, I say they are not and have provided what I believe to be reasonable evidence to suggest that my suppositions are valid.

This page, USGS: Historic World Earthquakes Mag. 6.0 and Greater shows clearly that strong quakes have indeed increased over the past 30 years, as stated in the OP source article.

Part of that analysis involves the suggestion that stress and the relief of stress are best thought of in terms of energy especially since the build up is so calculated I understand. Indeed from the movements measured by GPS it should be possible to calculate the potential stress on a system, but to then say we had 10 earthquakes so that relieved it is patently wrong.

As I stated VERY clearly, I'm asking whether or not a quake in part of the system CREATES stress in other parts of the system. YOU are the one focused on the (prehaps mistaken) idea that a quake relieves stress to benefit the whole system.

This is why I am saying you cannot 'count' earthquakes. I have made no mention of plates or of a single release doing the trick, just that one bigger quake may relieve more stress than a number of slightly smaller ones in magnitude. ...a multitude of small quakes do nothing much to release the stress on a fault.

Nothing to do with what I said. My sources refer to quakes mag +6, and the question is whether or not quakes create stress elsewhere, and trigger a cascade.

I want to look at a complex system - you focus on single faults and presume that all quakes "release stress" to benefit a given fault and the whole system.



Never mistake kindness for weakness.
~ anon.

reply to post by soficrow

sorry that you chose yet again to avoid the issues.

I am not avoiding any issues.

shows clearly that strong quakes have indeed increased over the past 30 years, as stated in the OP source article

What is it that you don't understand about the difference between numbers and energy. Please also explain how that page shows any increase when the start of it omits and mag 6 quakes?

You are making blind assumptions without looking at the facts purely on the basis that there are more entries for the later years. Numbers again. Have you sorted it into year order (use the button) and analysed it properly?

Have you noticed that there are magnitude 4 quakes in there as well in the later years, and even mag 3?

Have you also noted this

Selected earthquakes of general historic interest.

It is not covering ALL quakes only selected ones.

Don't tell me I am avoiding issues when there is no issue to avoid when your premise is built on an erroneous interpretation of the list. I have dealt with the OP source article which does not adequately demonstrate its premise either.

If you want to agree with your source OP that is fine. Prove your point first and don't just make unsupported statements and then get contrary when someone shows your analysis or source to be in error.

As I stated VERY clearly, I'm asking whether or not a quake in part of the system CREATES stress in other parts of the system. YOU are the one focused on the (prehaps mistaken) idea that a quake relieves stress to benefit the whole system.

This depends what you are determining to be 'the system'. I never said that at all.

Nothing to do with what I said. My sources refer to quakes mag +6, and the question is whether or not quakes create stress elsewhere, and trigger a cascade.

I want to look at a complex system - you focus on single faults and presume that all quakes "release stress" to benefit a given fault and the whole system.

I have made no such statement. Why don't you stop putting statement into my mouth?

All earthquakes of great magnitude have an effect elsewhere but I can not say exactly what that effect may be, neither can anyone else for more distant realms. Closer to the release (within 500km) there may be a triggering effect.

If you want to look at a complex system then why don't you do so and not expect someone else to do the legwork for you.

You have attempted to counter everything I have said with mistaken assumptions because you have not read what I have written (Skopje as an example) and you have made attributions to me that I have not said and then you have the gall to tell me I am avoiding the issue?

Enough. I am out of here. I have better things to do.

reply to post by PuterMan


1. I have stated repeatedly that I'm only looking at 6.0+M or 6.5+M quakes - so your continued insistence that lists include smaller quakes is not on point.

2. The 30-year increase of larger quakes in Japan flagged in the OP source article can be seen as predicting the March 11, 2011 Japan quake - and as bringing into question your basic assumption that quakes "relieve stress." …Looks like they create stress. NOTE: Even though you have not made the explicit statement, everything you say is based on that premise - else why keep saying really big quakes release more energy and thus, relieve more stress?

3. I've been trying to verify your data - can't do it without your info. Won't presume to check your calculations, but a list of the quakes you included with their magnitude and related "energy released" numbers would be good. Ie., what data did you base your graphs on?

4. The USGS: Historic World Earthquakes Mag. 6.0 and Greater page lists quakes 6.0+M - copied the 6.5+M quakes here for 2004 and 2009 - as you say, the quakes are "selected" but the page DOES show a significant increase overall in 6.5M quakes from the 60's through to the present. …

*1960 Selected Quakes*
1960 05 22 - Chile - M 9.5
1960 05 21 - Arauco Peninsula, Chile - M 7.9
1960 01 13 - Arequipa, Peru - M 7.5

*2004 Selected Quakes*

1. 2004 12 26 - Sumatra-Andaman Islands - M 9.1
2. 2004 12 23 - North of Macquarie Island - M 8.1
3. 2004 11 11 - Kepulauan Alor, Indonesia - M 7.5
4. 2004 09 05 - Near the South Coast of Honshu, Japan - M 7.4
5. 2004 02 07 - Irian Jaya, Indonesia - M 7.3
6. 2004 07 25 - Southern Sumatra, Indonesia - M 7.3
7. 2004 11 15 - Near the West Coast of Colombia - M 7.2
8. 2004 09 05 - Near the South Coast of Western Honshu, Japan - M 7.2
9. 2004 11 26 - Papua, Indonesia - M 7.1
10. 2004 11 22 - Off West Coast of South Island, N.Z. - M 7.1
11. 2004 02 05 - Irian Jaya, Indonesia - M 7.0
12. 2004 11 28 - Hokkaido, Japan Region - M 7.0
13. 2004 10 09 - Near the Coast of Nicaragua - M 7.0
14. 2004 11 09 - Solomon Islands - M 6.9
15. 2004 06 10 - Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia - M 6.9
16. 2004 12 14 - Cayman Islands Region - M 6.8
17. 2004 12 06 - Hokkaido, Japan Region - M 6.8
18. 2004 10 08 - Solomon Islands - M 6.8
19. 2004 06 28 - Southeastern Alaska - M 6.8
20. 2004 11 11 - Solomon Islands - M 6.7
21. 2004 11 02 - Vancouver Island, Canada Region - M 6.7
22. 2004 10 15 - Taiwan region - M 6.7
23. 2004 01 28 - Seram, Indonesia - M 6.7
24. 2004 10 08 - Mindoro, Philippines - M 6.5
25. 2004 05 29 - Off the East Coast of Honshu, Japan - M 6.5

*2009 Selected Quakes*

1. 2009 09 29 - Samoa Islands region - M 8.1
2. 2009 03 19 - Tonga region - M 7.6
3. 2009 09 30 - Southern Sumatra, Indonesia - M 7.5
4. 2009 08 10 - Andaman Islands, India region - M 7.5
5. 2009 10 07 - Vanuatu - M 7.4
6. 2009 01 15 - East of the Kuril Islands - M 7.4
7. 2009 01 03 - Near the North Coast of Papua, Indonesia - M 7.4
8. 2009 11 09 - Fiji - M 7.3
9. 2009 05 28 - Offshore Honduras - M 7.3
10. 2009 02 11 - Kepulauan Talaud, Indonesia - M 7.2
11. 2009 08 09 - Near the South Coast of Honshu, Japan - M 7.1
12. 2009 09 02 - Java, Indonesia - M 7.0
13. 2009 02 18 - Kermadec Islands region - M 7.0

14. 2009 10 24 - Banda Sea - M 6.9
15. 2009 08 28 - Banda Sea - M 6.9
16. 2009 08 03 - Gulf of California - M 6.9
17. 2009 04 07 - Kuril Islands - M 6.9
18. 2009 11 24 - Tonga - M 6.8
19. 2009 10 30 - Ryukyu Islands, Japan - M 6.8
20. 2009 10 08 - Vanuatu - M 6.8
21. 2009 10 07 - Celebes Sea - M 6.8
22. 2009 08 17 - Southwestern Ryukyu Islands, Japan - M 6.7
23. 2009 08 16 - Kepulauan Mentawai region, Indonesia - M 6.7
24. 2009 06 23 - New Ireland region, Papua New Guinea - M 6.7
25. 2009 04 16 - South Sandwich Islands region - M 6.7
26. 2009 01 15 - Southeast of the Loyalty Islands - M 6.7
27. 2009 11 17 - Queen Charlotte Islands region - M 6.6
28. 2009 11 08 - Sumbawa region, Indonesia - M 6.6
29. 2009 10 08 - Santa Cruz Islands - M 6.6
30. 2009 10 04 - Moro Gulf, Mindanao, Philippines - M 6.6
31. 2009 10 01 - Southern Sumatra, Indonesia - M 6.6
32. 2009 08 30 - Samoa Islands region - M 6.6
33. 2009 08 12 - Izu Islands, Japan region - M 6.6
34. 2009 08 10 - Santa Cruz Islands - M 6.6
35. 2009 04 18 - Kuril Islands - M 6.6
36. 2009 01 19 - Southeast of the Loyalty Islands - M 6.6
37. 2009 11 13 - Offshore Tarapaca, Chile - M 6.5
38. 2009 05 16 - Kermadec Islands region - M 6.5

In addition, the page verifies the data presented in the OP source article: quakes mag 6.0+ were in the single digits through the 60's - jumped - double digits by the 2000's; 35 in 2008, 52 in 2009, etc.

reply to post by PuterMan


about the graphs, just some 'simple' questions because i yet dont understand the importance of it.
I dont know how they get the energydata but i guess the depth of the quake is of big importance?

Lets say a 7.0 quake at 10km and a 7.0 at 100km would give the same energy, but if your computer(mesure equipement) is located on the earth surface, the one at 10km would give a much higher result?
i imagine they dont have sensors planted at depths of 100km, or maybe they have?

Its just i have difficulties in not knowing how they gather all this data and assuming they are a correct way of mesuring?
I already asked you about why they upgrade or downgrade the mags after a while.
I understand its not that easy and many parameters are playing a role in this, how more data is collected from different places and computers the more accurate the data.
So many of the early data we can asume its not quite comparable with the recent ones?

Or should we go back to the needle only method?

second; if you have an average of +-200000Tj (1960) it means there were quakes of a much higher energy outlets, no?
Or just one of 200000?

I just found your post about the 1960 quake data in the quake watch topic,sorry, that answered my second question

reply to post by soficrow

1. I have stated repeatedly that I'm only looking at 6.0+M or 6.5+M quakes - so your continued insistence that lists include smaller quakes is not on point.

I have NOT insisted that lists include smaller quakes. To paraphrase your own remark, "Are you drinking?" Where did I say that, and where am I insisting? The only thing I am now insisting is that you prove I made that statement.

All I have done is to use an example that had smaller quakes AS AN ILLUSTRATION of magnitude/energy differences.

2. The 30-year increase of larger quakes in Japan flagged in the OP source article can be seen as predicting the March 11, 2011 Japan quake - and as bringing into question your basic assumption that quakes "relieve stress." …Looks like they create stress. NOTE: Even though you have not made the explicit statement, everything you say is based on that premise - else why keep saying really big quakes release more energy and thus, relieve more stress?

There is NO 30 year increase in quakes. If you believe there is then please provide the data. I have already shown you that this is not the case, yet you continue to ignore everything I say. If you believe that this non-existent increase predicts the Tokohu quake then prove your point. Show where this is demonstrated and then explain to me why if this was so predictable it was not in fact predicted?

Quakes relieve stress. If you do not understand what an earthquake is please go and look it up. An earthquake (non-volcanic) is the release of built up stress. If you think this is not the case then kindly explain where I have been going wrong for 50 years.

"else why keep saying really big quakes release more energy and thus, relieve more stress?" Because they do. Just what exactly do you think a fault rupture is?

3. I've been trying to verify your data - can't do it without your info. Won't presume to check your calculations, but a list of the quakes you included with their magnitude and related "energy released" numbers would be good. Ie., what data did you base your graphs on?

You have not been trying to verify my data because I gave you the link to the centennial catalogue from which the data was taken and explained where the remaining data was derived. There is absolutely nothing stopping you downloading the centennial catalogue excel file and verifying the data for yourself, in fact I said that to you. Please do check my calculations. I am not infallible, but I have been doing these for a while. The formula to get the energy value from the magnitude in Terajoules is:

(10^(4.8+(magnitude*1.5)))/10^12

FROM THE CENTENNIAL CATALOG, ANSS AND USGS

Year, energy, NUMBER, energy per quake.
1930,41933,23,1823
1931,280975,50,5619
1932,255589,40,6389
1933,316177,32,9880
1934,227856,47,4848
1935,283446,35,8098
1936,95199,43,2213
1937,107586,32,3362
1938,590489,42,14059
1939,207690,34,6108
1940,106348,44,2417
1941,219763,42,5232
1942,211582,39,5425
1943,345456,62,5571
1944,192119,53,3624
1945,140971,45,3132
1946,285254,48,5942
1947,98603,34,2900
1948,226423,39,5805
1949,269218,60,4486
1950,711226,63,11289
1951,129793,48,2704
1952,2189314,43,50914
1953,160280,44,3642
1954,101504,41,2475
1955,132473,46,2879
1956,101327,34,2980
1957,3082877,63,48934
1958,330666,31,10666
1959,168266,37,4547
1960,11523116,54,213391
1961,98706,38,2597
1962,84447,41,2059
1963,728297,43,16937
1964,4046999,30,134899
1965,292796,54,5422
1966,203992,25,8159
1967,63627,29,2194
1968,347824,37,9400
1969,258777,32,8086
1970,196789,44,4472
1971,297577,37,8042
1972,130843,32,4088
1973,136787,32,4274
1974,167283,31,5396
1975,170952,38,4498
1976,235207,49,4800
1977,353623,36,9822
1978,177112,49,3614
1979,177857,45,3952
1980,126106,45,2802
1981,89418,44,2032
1982,67377,40,1684
1983,156822,54,2904
1984,90781,40,2269
1985,197464,44,4487
1986,139717,33,4233
1987,138691,59,2350
1988,96714,41,2358
1989,137082,35,3916
1990,136565,48,2845
1991,96224,42,2291
1992,124346,49,2537
1993,134266,46,2918
1994,449830,54,8330
1995,306361,69,4440
1996,356060,57,6246
1997,145103,42,3454
1998,172600,39,4425
1999,121063,39,3104
2000,290718,49,5933
2001,407986,42,9713

In addition, the page verifies the data presented in the OP source article: quakes mag 6.0+ were in the single digits through the 60's - jumped - double digits by the 2000's; 35 in 2008, 52 in 2009, etc.

It does not verify the data. In fact they have probably made exactly the same mistake as you, Note the third column in the list above - the number of quakes of 6.5 and over in each year. Do you see any single figures? I don't.

That being the case please tell me how your source is in any way credible when they cannot even let a spreadsheet do the basic maths? I have shown the graph of 1930 to 2010 based on these figures and the increase over the whole of that time averages out to 0.075 quakes per year cumulative.

4. The USGS: Historic World Earthquakes Mag. 6.0 and Greater page lists quakes 6.0+M - copied the 6.5+M quakes here for 2004 and 2009 - as you say, the quakes are "selected" but the page DOES show a significant increase overall in 6.5M quakes from the 60's through to the present.

No it does not. You CANNOT use a list like that as evidence. You have to go from a verified catalogue such as the centennial.

Do you know which ones they selectively left out? No you don't, so how can you make that assumption?

I am not going to continue trying to justify accepted scientific data to you. The data stands. Your OP source is wrong. Case closed.

reply to post by intergalactic fire

Lets say a 7.0 quake at 10km and a 7.0 at 100km would give the same energy, but if your computer(mesure equipement) is located on the earth surface, the one at 10km would give a much higher result?
i imagine they dont have sensors planted at depths of 100km, or maybe they have?

Well not exactly, and of course you are right they don't have sensors at 100 miles depth.

The waves go through the earth as well as around it. Have a read of this page and come back to me if that does not explain it for you.

Edit: Forgot this bit.

So many of the early data we can assume its not quite comparable with the recent ones?

Data has been relatively comparable since the 1950s and indeed earlier as many readings were based on the Woods Anderson seismograph (1925) which is the foundation stone of the Richter ML scale.

I usually consider data from 1930 onwards to be reasonably comparable to later data.

reply to post by PuterMan

…they have probably made exactly the same mistake as you, …please tell me how your source is in any way credible…

My source is USGS - I provided the link but here it is again: USGS: Historic World Earthquakes Mag. 6.0 and Greater.

As I posted earlier:

…the amount of energy involved is important. My questions are: How exactly is it important? Does the energy-release factor override (all) other factors? Does a single release of energy relieve stress on the entire system, thus maintaining geophysical homeostasis, or might it trigger a cascade that upsets the current equilibrium?

Your response: "… you cannot 'count' earthquakes. …one bigger quake may relieve more stress than a number of slightly smaller ones in magnitude."

I said: "the question is whether or not quakes create stress elsewhere, and trigger a cascade.
…(but) - you …presume that all quakes "release stress" to benefit a given fault and the whole system."

Your response: "I have made no such statement." Then you say, contemptuously, "…quakes relieve stress. …Just what exactly do you think a fault rupture is?"

You ARE saying that quakes relieve stress, which implies that the release serves to maintain geophysical homeostasis, which I question. But when I try to paraphrase and clarify, you say I'm putting words in your mouth.



I requested your data and links, wanting to review the energy-release of 6.5+M quakes - you provided conclusions that cannot be verified, without links, but which supposedly include all quakes 1.5+M.

FROM THE CENTENNIAL CATALOG, ANSS AND USGS

Year, energy, NUMBER, energy per quake.

…I know I'm not stupid, so I can only conclude you're trying to do a BSBB number on me.



You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
- Abe Lincoln

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by PuterMan

 

My source is USGS - I provided the link but here it is again: USGS: Historic World Earthquakes Mag. 6.0 and Greater.

No your source was that Canadian newsrag. You subsequently introduced the USGS page and then proceeded to jump to erroneous conclusions from it. It was not your original source. Unfortunately I find it very difficult to keep up with someone who has little or no recollection of what has been said or done.

As I posted earlier:

…the amount of energy involved is important. My questions are: How exactly is it important? Does the energy-release factor override (all) other factors? Does a single release of energy relieve stress on the entire system, thus maintaining geophysical homeostasis, or might it trigger a cascade that upsets the current equilibrium?

Your response: "… you cannot 'count' earthquakes. …one bigger quake may relieve more stress than a number of slightly smaller ones in magnitude."

Actually my response included "it depends what you call the system". You are now taking responses and muddling them up. I have explained how important energy is several time now.

I said: "the question is whether or not quakes create stress elsewhere, and trigger a cascade.
…(but) - you …presume that all quakes "release stress" to benefit a given fault and the whole system."

Your response: "I have made no such statement." Then you say, contemptuously, "…quakes relieve stress. …Just what exactly do you think a fault rupture is?"

You ARE saying that quakes relieve stress,

Of course they relieve stress, it that which is the cause of the earthquake. There is nothing contemptuous about that. You are pretending to have some knowledge about a subject of which you patently obviously have little or no knowledge, yet you try to contradict everything that I say. Go and learn about what an earthquake is and then we can talk. I have told you that there are circumstances where one earthquake can trigger another, but not at great distances. You seem to want to apply some global model to what is inherently a local system. Why are you taking points from two different posts and amalgamating them? It makes it very difficult to understand what you are saying.

which implies that the release serves to maintain geophysical homeostasis,

Obviously

which I question. But when I try to paraphrase and clarify, you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

Because you are saying that I said things which I did not. Several times you have done this now. You have also faied to respond to my query about where you got your data for 1963, but that's OK,I am beginning to understand that you don't have to answer anything or even justify any of your statements but you get mightily offended when you erroneously assume that I have not.

I requested your data and links, wanting to review the energy-release of 6.5+M quakes - you provided conclusions that cannot be verified, without links, but which supposedly include all quakes 1.5+M.

FROM THE CENTENNIAL CATALOG, ANSS AND USGS

Year, energy, NUMBER, energy per quake.

This really is getting ridiculous. Do you not actually read anything at all?

Go back and read this post where I detailed the link to the centennial catalog.

In this post I described the data I had used.

Since you have been pressing me this is a quick version based on the USGS Centennial Catalogue for dates between 1960 and 2001, on ANSS data from 2002 to 2008 inclusive and on data I have collected from USGS 7 day listings for 2009 and 2010.

I say a quick version because I have not checked all the latest 7 day versions against the ANSS catalogue however the difference will be very minor and if anything would probably very slightly lower the figures for 2009 and 2010.

These are only for Magnitude 6.5+ as data before 1964 for lower magnitude quakes is not in the Centennial.

I not only provided conclusions that can be verified, I also provided the links for you to be able to do so AND pointed out that NONE of the data I used was less than magnitude 6.5.

Can you explain to my why you are lying about what I said when it is plainly there to see in the posts?

I am sorry but I abhor liars so either desist or we have nothing to talk about.

…I know I'm not stupid, so I can only conclude you're trying to do a BSBB number on me.

I have absolutely no idea what a BSBB number is. Text speak is not permitted on ATS.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
- Abe Lincoln

Your somewhat irrelevant quotations add nothing to the discussion.

Strong arguments; lots of comparisons. Certainly very interesting conversation.
I agree with both Soficrow and PuterMan; but then I also disagree.

The energy of quakes is very important in a specific location;
but globally the amount of earthquakes are more important.
Therefore you will often find even USGS does not list all quakes (after shocks) in same location.

Let me expand more by simplified example:
If Tonga (South Pacific) have an increase number of quakes, but reduced energy per quake; the total might be more or less the same over a period of time. On the other hand one can have less quakes, but higher energy value - if all balance out to the average then nothing strange.
So the correct statement is: The number of earthquakes does not matter; the energy value does.

Now for this past 10 days I noticed an increase in numbers - which in this case is more important than the actual energy released. Because these numbers are spread to areas which are not on the 'daily activity' lists. Burma, Thailand, Burundi, Crete, Los Lagos, Yemen.
In this case the energy factor does not calculate; these are quakes on places they are not 'supposed' to be. Here it is the number or may I rather say the spread that counts.

Same picture different views.

@Soficrow; as per your original statement: I do agree there is a link between earthquakes and magnetosphere - but rather the opposite from your direction. The magnetosphere is affected by solar events; such might cause a chain reaction through all layers of atmosphere and eventually to earth and if conditions are right - it might trigger a quake. In retrospect the quake will cause a ripple effect back to magnetosphere; resonance. Especially if the quake is a horizontal movement like Japan.

NOT all solar events cause earthquakes;
NOT all earthquakes are triggered by solar events;
NOT all earthquakes have an effect to magnetosphere.
ALL solar events do affect the magnetosphere.

For study i am rather using the 5.0 as cut-off level. 6.5 is very strong but the number makes comparisons a little restricted.

Originally posted by Aromaz
So the correct statement is: The number of earthquakes does not matter; the energy value does.

Oh yeah? Well why don't you tell that to the millions of Japanese that are suffering terror each and every time one of those 5+ aftershocks hits? Why don't you ask THEM if the energy value matters that much once you are talking 5.5+ aftershocks in the context of a situation where they have no idea if an even bigger one could hit- just like what happened when the 9+ hit?

I'll guarantee you they would have settled for one big 9.2 rather than endure the aftershocks- no matter WHAT their energy was.

It all matters. It just depends on your frame of reference. Sitting in a chair observing sure does afford judgement, doesn't it. Barely surviving the situation yourself brings another perspective that I think needs to be considered.

@TrueAmerican

Please have a look at the topic of this thread; it is not about a single event or location. Then read the whole thread to get updated and enable your understanding on the issue at hand; which is not about one event with its side effects.