Strong Earthquakes Increasing. Disrupting Planet's Magnetic Field?

reply to post by Aromaz

@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.

I think we mainly agree - I am especially interested in the resonance, or "feedback loop" as I described it earlier. …I was very surprised to discover that the earth's magnetic field was not disrupted significantly before the Japan quake - only after.

According to the USGS, the Japan quake occurred at 05:46:23 UTC. However, the NICT Space Weather site doesn't show any disruptions in the magnetic field on March 11 until 20:00 UTC - about 14 hours after the earthquake occurred. These disruptions seem to have continued almost unabated until the past week.

A powerful solar flare on March 9 did not come near earth but NICT shows minor disruptions between 13-14:00 UTC and at 20:00 UTC. A weak coronal mass ejection (CME) hit Earth's magnetic field on March 10th around 06:30 UTC - the field was minimally disrupted at that time, and again around 13:00UTC and between 20-22:00UTC.

NASA: 03.11.11 …a CME strike on March 10, 2011 …resulted in a G1-class geomagnetic storm.
…March 9th ended with a powerful solar flare. …Some material was surely hurled in our direction, but probably not enough for significant Earth-effects.
…on March 10, 2011 around 06:30 UT, a CME did strike a glaceing blow to Earth's magnetic field.

…After four years without any X-flares, the sun has produced two of the powerful blasts in less than one month: Feb. 15th and March 9th. This continues the recent trend of increasing solar activity associated with our sun's regular 11-year cycle, and confirms that Solar Cycle 24 is indeed heating up, as solar experts have expected. Solar activity will continue to increase as the solar cycle progresses toward solar maximum, expected in the 2013 time frame.

The high frequencies associated with solar storms get public attention because of their potential to disrupt technology - but the pre- and post storm low frequencies may have more of a geophysical effect, albeit slower and less apparent.

Of note:
1. Low, extremely low (ELF) and ultra-low (ULF) frequencies occur 24 hours before a solar storm and also, after the storm.
2. ELF and ULF are the frequencies associated with earthquakes; studies show ELFs and ULFs occur before quakes (when they do); there is too much noise to determine the source of post-quake frequencies.

My main questions here:

1. Do the pre- and post solar storm frequencies - low, ELF and ULFs - have more of a geophysical impact than the high frequencies that occur during the actual solar storm?

2. Do the pre- and post solar storm low frequencies initiate a cascade, and a feedback loop where quake-associated low frequencies and storm-associated low frequencies establish a resonance?



reply to post by TrueAmerican

…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 …?

…It all matters.

Yes, it all matters.

Even leaving aside the very real human considerations, the planet is a complex system - interdependent, interconnected, interactive, responsive.

It is a HUGE mistake to think that any "local" event or dynamic is, or can be, isolated from the whole. …Puterman's oft-cited "Bigger and More is Better Law" may apply more suitably to certain biological functions than earthquakes - because as you say, it all depends on your perspective.

From my perspective, we're on a planet peppered with nuclear reactors, NASA confirms that Solar Cycle 24 is indeed heating up, solar flares can trigger quakes although we don't know how, quakes trigger quakes and so do all kinds of industrial activities - and gawdknows what other forces and dynamics might be in play.

Time to ignore the damage-control dogma, or call it for what it is - and WAKE UP!



reply to post by PuterMan


Ridicule, contempt, attacks on others' credibility, and posting a few razzle-dazzle smoke-and-mirrors graphs without the background data do NOT constitute "discussion." …I do NOT worship "experts" or blindly accept whatever they say. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for 2 1/2 pages on this thread.

You've spent the entire thread defending IAEA and oil/gas industry dogma. I question your position, conclusions, motives, agenda - and your so-called "data."

…how can the number of earthquakes matter when the energy is logarithmic?

Because the earth is a complicated, intricate, complex system - where something happens, and when, is at least as important as how much. …Also, Why did it happen? What exactly was it that happened? What kinds of cascades might be triggered?

The evidence shows that quakes trigger quakes, as do seismic testing, oil and gas drilling, hydro power dams, nuclear testing and more. Granted, it can't be predicted where the effects will be felt, or how bad they will be, but the fact there will be effects is known.

Given that the industrial assaults on our planet's geophysical integrity have only gotten worse and more frequent over the past 30 years, AND that the planet now is peppered with nuclear reactors - the situation is more critical than ever.

reply to post by soficrow

Ridicule, contempt, attacks on others' credibility, and posting a few razzle-dazzle smoke-and-mirrors graphs without the background data do NOT constitute "discussion." …I do NOT worship "experts" or blindly accept whatever they say. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for 2 1/2 pages on this thread.

You gave me the benefit? I have not attacked your credibility you have attacked mine and have not backed up one single think you have said nor answered any questions you have been asked. What sort of credibility do you think that leaves you with?

If you consider those to be "smoke and mirrors" graphs then you are accusing a respected pair of scientists of creating fictitious data. Yet again you persist in lying saying that I have not provided background data.

In fact your whole tone has been belligerent, confrontational and self centred.

You've spent the entire thread defending IAEA and oil/gas industry dogma. I question your position, conclusions, motives, agenda - and your so-called "data."

I really seriously believe you must be on something. When did the IAEA and oil/gas industry come into this? You are entitled to question my position, conclusions, motives and agenda, but that is just a typical attack on the part of someone who has no data, no knowledge and no willingness to acquire either.

reply to post by PuterMan


The earth is a complicated, intricate, complex system - where something happens, and when, is at least as important as how much. …Also, Why did it happen? What exactly was it that happened? What kinds of cascades might be triggered?

The evidence shows that quakes trigger quakes, as do seismic testing, oil and gas drilling, hydro power dams, nuclear testing and more. Granted, it can't be predicted where the effects will be felt, or how bad they will be, but the fact there will be effects is known.

Given that the industrial assaults on our planet's geophysical integrity have only gotten worse and more frequent over the past 30 years, AND that the planet now is peppered with nuclear reactors - the situation is more critical than ever.

I am especially interested in the resonance, or "feedback loop" as I described it earlier. …I was very surprised to discover that the earth's magnetic field was not disrupted significantly before the Japan quake - only after.

According to the USGS, the Japan quake occurred at 05:46:23 UTC. However, the NICT Space Weather site doesn't show any disruptions in the magnetic field on March 11 until 20:00 UTC - about 14 hours after the earthquake occurred. These disruptions seem to have continued almost unabated until the past week.

A powerful solar flare on March 9 did not come near earth but NICT shows minor disruptions between 13-14:00 UTC and at 20:00 UTC. A weak coronal mass ejection (CME) hit Earth's magnetic field on March 10th around 06:30 UTC - the field was minimally disrupted at that time, and again around 13:00UTC and between 20-22:00UTC.

NASA: 03.11.11 …a CME strike on March 10, 2011 …resulted in a G1-class geomagnetic storm.
…March 9th ended with a powerful solar flare. …Some material was surely hurled in our direction, but probably not enough for significant Earth-effects.
…on March 10, 2011 around 06:30 UT, a CME did strike a glaceing blow to Earth's magnetic field.

…After four years without any X-flares, the sun has produced two of the powerful blasts in less than one month: Feb. 15th and March 9th. This continues the recent trend of increasing solar activity associated with our sun's regular 11-year cycle, and confirms that Solar Cycle 24 is indeed heating up, as solar experts have expected. Solar activity will continue to increase as the solar cycle progresses toward solar maximum, expected in the 2013 time frame.

The high frequencies associated with solar storms get public attention because of their potential to disrupt technology - but the pre- and post storm low frequencies may have more of a geophysical effect, albeit slower and less apparent.

Of note:
1. Low, extremely low (ELF) and ultra-low (ULF) frequencies occur 24 hours before a solar storm and also, after the storm.
2. ELF and ULF are the frequencies associated with earthquakes; studies show ELFs and ULFs occur before quakes (when they do); there is too much noise to determine the source of post-quake frequencies.

My main questions here:

1. Do the pre- and post solar storm frequencies - low, ELF and ULFs - have more of a geophysical impact than the high frequencies that occur during the actual solar storm?

2. Do the pre- and post solar storm low frequencies initiate a cascade, and a feedback loop where quake-associated low frequencies and storm-associated low frequencies establish a resonance?

Interesting earthquake project, with graphs:

Earthquakes by Average Strength 1975-2011 (Monthly)

Earthquakes by Average Magnitude 1975-2011 ( Monthly)

Interesting report on 7.0+ quakes from the UK:

DATES FROM & TO PERIOD NO. EARTHQUAKES (Mag. > 6.99)
--------------------------- ----------- ------------------------------
1863 to 1900 incl 38 yrs 12
1901 to 1938 incl 38 yrs 53
1939 to 1976 incl 38 yrs 71
1977 to 2014 incl * 38 yrs 164 (to Mar. 2011) predict >190 in total.

Reference list 1901 to 1938
Reference list 1939 to 1976
Reference list 1977 to date

* …this report was initially written in 2006. …the final period (from 1977) will be updated as required until the end of 2014. In the meantime a predicted total is shown.
The earthquake (OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN) … on 11th March 2011 is the last included in these numbers. [Ed. Note: 2 more 7.0+ M followed the 9.0M quake.]

…Trends since 1986

For example, between 1986 and 1996 (incl), a period of 11 years, there were "just" 15 earthquakes listed by USGS of magnitude 7.0 or greater. This is not markedly different (albeit a slight decrease) from previous (similar periods) of 20th century, where an average of about 18 might be expected.

But between 1997 and 2007 (incl), a period of only 11 years, there were 99 earthquakes with magnitude 7.0 or greater : This is more than a six-fold increase on the previous similar period - and is a stark increase on any earlier decades in 20th century too.

reply to post by soficrow


I am afraid that with the best will in the world the data you have referred to is incomplete. I have been aware of both these sites for quite some time, and Webecs gets it's data from Lindquist.

Taking just the list for 1901 to 1939 (as I don't have time to compare the rest) you will find that to base anything on that Webecs list is a plain travesty.

I do not know if it is done maliciously of just through ignorance, so I will lean towards the latter, but I have my suspicions since anyone who was genuinely researching earthquakes would be aware of the proper sources.

The Centennial catalogue, despite the fact that you maligned it as dubious and the maligned the two scientists who created it by so doing, is acknowledged to be the premier earthquake catalogue in the world for larger earthquakes from 1900 to 2002. If you choose to disbelieve that you may do so, but the fact remains that it is so acknowledged in the scientific community.

I have compared the data presented by the Webec site that you referenced to the Centennial catalogue for which I have given a link earlier. My comparison involves no calculations. It is simply checking one list against the other to find matches. I have presented it as a PDF file but if you want the Excel spreadsheet let me know.

Comparison of data 1901 to 1939 Webec/Centennial (PDF)

Their list contains 50 or so earthquakes against the 650 or so in the Centennial catalogue.

Frankly I do not care if you consider this to be a 'smoke and mirrors' exercise or dubious data or anything else. The verified data is there for anyone with the will to investigate it.

If you find data lists that are incomplete of such great interest, and chose to base your arguments on these, that is your prerogative. Personally I prefer to work with scientific verified data that is accepted worldwide as a scientific catalogue as opposed to web lists that are produced for public consumption and do not tell the whole story.

reply to post by PuterMan


When I asked for your reference data, I was expecting to see something like this one of Lindquist's - Reference list 1977 to date, with an additional column for energy-release/terajoules. My assumption was that you created such a list and used it to make your graphs, so asking you to share it didn't seem out of line to me. …The point is that Lindquist DID provide his reference list for scrutiny and criticism, but you did NOT. Because you did not provide your reference list, I questioned you.

You have said that I keep changing my focus here (or something like that) - and you're right - I have been thinking, getting more information and developing my hypothesis. It's a legitimate part of the process, and one I do not think needs to be defended.

The title does refer to earthquakes' relationship to the magnetic field, and I have tried consistently to get back to that:

Please note: As stated in my OP, my main interest here is in earthquake's impacts on the planet's magnetic field - which is where I'd like to focus. [I suspect there may be a feedback loop between the field and seismic activity, perhaps triggered initially by solar storms.]

But regarding numbers. In the end, it clearly doesn't matter if the number of large earthquakes has been increasing or not, for several reasons, which I also keep repeating:

1. Today, the same number of earthquakes with the same levels of energy-release will do one helluva lot more damage than was possible in the past:

a. Industrial assaults on our planet's geophysical integrity escalated over the past 30 years, making the planet more vulnerable geophysically, at new locations, in new ways;

b. Our planet is now peppered with nuclear reactors, bioweapons laboratories, chemical factories and more - potentially vulnerable to damage - making us biologically at risk, in ways and at levels never before possible.

2. While earthquakes do release stress on the local fault / system, evidence AND logic show that they also create stress elsewhere in the larger system. Of note:

a. Some of the new fissures and sinkholes appearing around the world suggest that the stress-points are not limited to known fault lines;

b. Oil/gas extraction, mines, dams and other industrial incursions into the earth's crust arguably have changed the planet's geophysical dynamic, and may work to over-stress existent faults or crustal weaknesses, or create new faults when subjected to additional earthquake-caused stress.

[More later.]

So I apologise - despite the first part of this thread's title, the number of earthquakes was and remains a side-issue to me, worth investigating but not the focus. As outlined in the OP, and reiterated in my posts.

reply to post by PuterMan


For purposes of argument and to get discussion moving, I am willing to accept your conclusions that earthquake frequency has NOT increased - on condition that you accept my conclusions that the potential impacts are inherently far greater than they ever have been before. I also apologize again for being brusque, pushing you to respond, then behaving a bit like a female dog when you do.

What I really want to do next is create a timeline comparing 6.0+ M earthquake occurrences with magnetic field data from NICT and HAARP's measurements of ULF's. (Just saw a thread supporting my observations that ELF/ULF's are related to earthquakes, 2-2.5mhz specifically.) I expect to see an identifiable feedback loop / resonance.

I would also like to create an animated map illustrating the sequential movement of quakes around the globe since January 1, 2011. (Not going to happen - but I think it would be revealing.)

On a side note - My birds are going nuts again, the dogs are acting a bit weird, and it's all quite distracting - has been fairly constant for the last good while, generally coincides with a 6.0+ M somewhere.

Yea, I think that earthquakes are definitely getting "Stronger", and there are way more of them, now, probably since the 1990s. I made a thread, in which I post dates about earthquakes, and show that ever since the HAARP facility was built, there are more earthquakes than before. This is the thread.

reply to post by soficrow


I totalled it into years. www.abovetopsecret.com...

You surely were not expecting me to list the full 3080+ lines on ATS? Download the catalogue. I gave you the link and I gave you the formula. Do the exercise for yourself. I am in the process of combining these which were taken from 3 different spreadsheets into one and I will happily post a link to that when it is done.

So I apologise - despite the first part of this thread's title, the number of earthquakes was and remains a side-issue to me

Well considering how you browbeat me to try and prove that point when I indicated I was not ready to do so, and then denied my data and graphs as being smoke and mirrors, you have a very strange way of looking at a side issue.

The rest of the post makes various statements with no reference to supporting evidence, and none of it has any relevance to the magnetic field as far as I can see.

After your behaviour I am afraid I am not interested in continuing this. You have not even bothered to acknowledge the work I spent several hours this afternoon compiling, let alone any other data. I am not here to be your data collection service or your research facility. If you want to make a point, do the research yourself.

To all the people that are talking about earth's cycle's and how Earthquakes work... that's great great stuff. Yup..you guy's know it all.

It is a fact that Seismologist will tell you that they do not know how to predict an earthquake. Their still working on it. They get clues, dead animals dying in flocks and schools. The moon and sun flares have something to do with it..they think. Every time we have a full moon or a sun flare we don't always have an earthquake. I personally think we need to throw in HARRP and Oil exploration. We have experts stating that this is definitely a cause. One oil expert came out and admitted the day he drilled in a location there was an earthquake and he knew it was caused by himself. He tried to warn the people he needed to but money was more important then the safety of people.

HARRP was running 10days before Japans Earthquake and HARRPS own website has the proof. So, if people are going to deduce, and try and figure out what's going on, or what causes earthquakes, look at all available data. If you don't... then you're point is mute!

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by soficrow

 

You surely were not expecting me to list the full 3080+ lines on ATS?

Nope. Just the 6.99+ M, to see the evidence behind your claim that larger quakes are NOT increasing.

Originally posted by PuterMan
The rest of the post makes various statements with no reference to supporting evidence,

That would be because it's a partial outline, not a dissertation.

Originally posted by PuterMan
and none of it has any relevance to the magnetic field as far as I can see.

You mean this bit?

Originally posted by soficrow

But regarding numbers... it clearly doesn't matter if the number of large earthquakes has been increasing or not... because...

1. Today, the same number of earthquakes with the same levels of energy-release will do one helluva lot more damage than was possible in the past:

a. Industrial assaults on our planet's geophysical integrity escalated over the past 30 years, making the planet more vulnerable geophysically, at new locations, in new ways;

b. Our planet is now peppered with nuclear reactors, bioweapons laboratories, chemical factories and more - potentially vulnerable to damage - making us biologically at risk, in ways and at levels never before possible.

2. While earthquakes do release stress on the local fault / system, evidence AND logic show that they also create stress elsewhere in the larger system. Of note:

a. Some of the new fissures and sinkholes appearing around the world suggest that the stress-points are not limited to known fault lines;

b. Oil/gas extraction, mines, dams and other industrial incursions into the earth's crust arguably have changed the planet's geophysical dynamic, and may work to over-stress existent faults or crustal weaknesses, or create new faults when subjected to additional earthquake-caused stress.

Or this one?

Originally posted by soficrow
What I really want to do next is create a timeline comparing 6.0+ M earthquake occurrences with magnetic field data from NICT and HAARP's measurements of ULF's. ...I expect to see an identifiable feedback loop / resonance.

Originally posted by PuterMan
I am not here to be your data collection service or your research facility. If you want to make a point, do the research yourself.

Ditto.

...I provided links to a graph showing Earthquakes by Average Strength 1975-2011, showing a VERY steep climb. By strength, not magnitude.

AND I provided the reference lists for the quakes included in the graph:

Reference list 1939 to 1976
Reference list 1977 to date

An interesting tidbit of information.

Microseisms are tremors created by pounding ocean waves - unlike earthquakes, which are caused by movements of the tectonic plates. How many other earth movements are caused by other things? And where, if not at the edge of plates or on fault lines?

Extreme Ocean Storms On the Rise, Tremors Show, April 25, 2008

Extreme ocean storms have ramped up in frequency over the past 30 years, according to new research based on small tremors.

The faint tremors, called microseisms, are periodic movements of Earth's surface that can last anywhere from 5 to 30 seconds.

Unlike earthquakes, which are caused by movements of Earth's tectonic plates, microseisms are created by the incessant beating of waves along the coasts.

Also see v1rtu0s0's thread, Earth Getting Mysteriously Windier.

RapTek's thread presents an article concluding that HAARP broadcast ULF waves for 2 days and induced the Japan earthquake.

I suspect that the Japanese-manufactured magnometer simply recorded the frequencies, and shows that the ELF's and ULF's occurring pre- and post solar storms can cause earthquakes and then establish a resonance.

The United States Air Force and Navy has provided a visual insight into what caused the 9.0 magnitude off of Japan on March 11, 2011 at 05:46:23 UTC. The image above was downloaded from the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) website. It is a time-frequency spectrogram, which shows the frequency content of signals recorded by the HAARP Induction Magnetometer. This instrument, provided by the University of Tokyo, measures temporal variations in the geomagnetic field (Earth’s magnetosphere) in the ULF (ultra-low frequency) range of 0-5 Hz. Notions have been added to the image to show you what was happening the day the Japan earthquake and tsunami struck.

By looking at the accompanying HAARP spectrum chart above you can see when the 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck - red line drawn vertically - and what was happening before and after the earthquake. What you can also see is a constant ULF frequency of 2.5 Hz being recorded by the magnetometer. …The chart recorded this constant before, during and after the 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck.

reply to post by soficrow

Nope. Just the 6.99+ M, to see the evidence behind your claim that larger quakes are NOT increasing.

If you bother to go and look at the centennial catalogue you will see that 3080 is the number for the 6.5+ quakes as I stated.

reply to post by soficrow


I give up. You continue to cherry pick information just like the rest of the idiots out there with an agenda.

Have a nice life. You are not worth the bother.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by soficrow

 

Nope. Just the 6.99+ M, to see the evidence behind your claim that larger quakes are NOT increasing.

If you bother to go and look at the centennial catalogue you will see that 3080 is the number for the 6.5+ quakes as I stated.

The graph and data presented deal with quakes 6.99+ M (mag 7 and greater) - NOT 6.5+. So comparing the 2 is not relevant.

From post above: Earthquakes by Average Strength 1975-2011, showing a VERY steep climb. By strength, not magnitude.

Reference lists for the quakes included in the graph:

Reference list 1939 to 1976
Reference list 1977 to date

reply to post by soficrow


So first you don't want to use energy and now, when it suits you to do so, you want to quote energy.

Your original premise was that the numbers of quakes had gone up substantially since 1975.

Looking at that figure there is a slight upturn at 2010 otherwise it is steady enough with a dip in the 1980s.



Just for good measure here is the energy figure in 10s of Petajoules compared to the count of earthquakes for 1975 to 2011 inclusive.



Since the 2011 data is not in the PDF referenced below here it is:

Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-03-11T06:25:50.000Z,38.10630,144.55310,7.1000,19.7000,off the east coast of Honshu. Japan
2011-03-11T06:15:40.000Z,36.17930,141.17230,7.9000,39.0000,near the east coast of Honshu. Japan
2011-03-11T05:46:23.000Z,38.32200,142.36900,9.0000,32.0000,near the east coast of Honshu. Japan
2011-03-09T02:45:20.000Z,38.42420,142.83580,7.2000,32.0000,near the east coast of Honshu. Japan
2011-01-18T20:23:23.000Z,28.73170,63.92750,7.2000,68.0000,southwestern Pakistan
2011-01-13T16:16:41.000Z,-20.62250,168.45900,7.0000,9.0000,Loyalty Islands. New Caledonia
2011-01-02T20:20:18.000Z,-38.35430,-73.27500,7.1000,25.1000,Araucania. Chile
2011-01-01T09:56:58.000Z,-26.79440,-63.07890,7.0000,576.8000,Santiago del Estero. Argentina

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

I will leave you to work out the energy for those lines for yourself if you question the figures since I have previously given you the formula to do so in this post

The reference data for that graph is taken from the Centennial and ANSS catalogues and can be found here. I am not posting the list as it contains 514 entries.

Reference lists for the quakes included in the graph:

Reference list 1939 to 1976
Reference list 1977 to date

The graph by Lindquist that you presented runs from 1975 not the dates you have given and the one you selected was the average energy release per quake monthly for Magnitude 8+ so really not very relevant.

Looking at his Mag 7 average strength on a yearly basis so we are comparing l;ike for like his graph is here:
Magnitude 7+ Average Strength

Unfortunately he gives absolutely no indication of how this is calculated. Looking at his graph I have to question how 2004 (Banda Aceh) can be so much lower in value that 2011 (Tokohu) both about the same values. It would seem he is making extrapolations for the fact that we are only just into the year. There is of course a difference as there has been some significant energy release as my graph which is the equivalent of his shows.



Looking at his Number of Quakes by year I would say that he is erroneously extrapolating the figures for both numbers and energy based on the first quarter values. I doubt very much if that will hold good over the whole year. For a start it would mean that there would have to be another 3 magnitude 9 earthquakes and that just is not going to happen.

You have, like him chosen to cherry pick data since as I have demonstrated when you go back to 1930 and use other strong quakes down to 6.5+ which I consider is a reasonable cut off, you can see that there is a huge peak in the 1960s, and will probably be another centred around the Japan quake 2011. There was also some significant activity in the 1930s as well.

This is a cyclical pattern on a 30 to 40 year cycle, and it has been noted by some geologists that this is the case. You will probably find, although I doubt I shall around to see it, that you will get a similar spike around 2050. In the intervening years it will probably go back to the levels of the 1970s and 1980s.

From post above: Earthquakes by Average Strength 1975-2011, showing a VERY steep climb. By strength, not magnitude.

The basic facts are that your premise that there is a significant increase only holds good in your cherry picked year range and not for the period of time that can reasonably be considered to have accurate enough data to get a picture of events, i.e. from 1930 onwards. The numbers have NOT increased significantly, and whilst the energy has in the past couple of years it pales into insignificance against 1960. Virtually ALL of this recent increase is accounted for in the 3 major quakes Band, Chile and Tokohu. This is no different to the pattern around 1960 and indeed earlier successive periods of 30 to 40 years.

1964 03 28 - Prince William Sound, Alaska - M 9.2 Fatalities 128
1963 10 13 - Kuril Islands - M 8.5
1960 05 22 - Chile - M 9.5 Fatalities 1,655
1958 11 06 - Kuril Islands - M 8.3
1957 12 04 - Gobi-Altay, Mongolia - M 8.1 Fatalities 30
1957 03 09 - Andreanof Islands, Alaska - M 8.6

1930s was only 8s but a number of them
1934 01 15 - Bihar, India - Nepal - M 8.1 Fatalities 10,700
1933 03 02 - Sanriku, Japan - M 8.4 Fatalities 2,990
1932 06 03 - Jalisco, Mexico - M 8.1 Fatalities 45
1931 08 10 - Xinjiang, China - M 8.0 Fatalities 10,000
1922 11 11 - Chile-Argentina Border - M 8.5

1906 01 31 - Off the Coast of Esmeraldas, Ecuador - M 8.8 Fatalities 1,000
1905 07 09 - Mongolia - M 8.4
1903 08 11 - Southern Greece - M 8.3
1899 09 10 - Yakutat Bay, Alaska - M 8.0
1897 06 12 - Assam, India - M 8.3 Fatalities 1,500
1896 06 15 - Sanriku, Japan - M 8.5 Fatalities 27,000

1868 08 13 - Arica, Peru (now Chile) - M 9.0 Fatalities 25,000

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Basically you and your cherry picked data sources are scaremongering and misinterpreting data.

If you don't believe my figures then why don't YOU spend many hours buried in spreadsheets working the figures and doing some proper research instead of picking on cherry picked data that suits your agenda and that you can't or won't verify.

In this post you refer to your 'sources' for mag 6+, now it is mag 7+ and the source has changed. You repeated again that you were only looking at mag 6+ in this post. You refer to this again in this post.

Consistency does not seem to be one of your strong points. At least I have consistently used the same sources of verified and scientifically accepted data throughout.

In this post you said

I do NOT worship "experts" or blindly accept whatever they say.

Despite stating this this you have and are doing just exactly that. Not once have you verified anyone's data. One has to ask why that would be?

Despite your completely erroneous statement for example on Skopje and the largest quake in 1963 you have not admitted your error, in fact you never admit you are wrong, just change the goalposts and ignore anything that was said before. I don't, can't and will not work like that.

++ The End ++

reply to post by PuterMan

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by soficrow

 

So first you don't want to use energy and now, when it suits you to do so, you want to quote energy.

I was trying to respect your focus and contributions, and address your issues.

Sorry you don't get that.

And again...

The evidence shows that quakes trigger quakes, as do seismic testing, oil and gas drilling, hydro power dams, nuclear testing and more. Granted, it can't be predicted where the effects will be felt, or how bad they will be, but the fact there will be effects is known.

Given that the industrial assaults on our planet's geophysical integrity have only gotten worse and more frequent over the past 30 years, AND that the planet now is peppered with nuclear reactors - the situation is more critical than ever.

reply to post by soficrow


HAARP has been active for quite some time and it has a direct effect on the magnetosphere.

When they transmit through their gigantic antenna array north of Anchorage the fixed array which is steerable electrically is assumed to have an effective radiated power estimated to be in the terrawatt range.

When they transmit they can not only control the direction of where the plasma aurora pushes up around 150 miles and where it returns to earth with exponentially more force than it originally had. The plasma waves create sub harmonics and multi-harmonics of the original frequencies used which are in the range of 1-30 Hertz which is the area the human brain operates at. Those frequencies can also cause earthquakes, seismic sea waves, rainfall, and various other anomalies including creating a hole in a foreign missile defense system so that it can enter the airspace of another country without being detected in flight.

Additionally they have a newer system that can do many other things which operates around 2.35 gigahertz (if that sounds familiar it is-that's the same frequency microwave ovens operate to cook food and heat things at using simple higher radio frequency). That system is fed into co-phased parabolic dish antennas which are extremely steerable electrically for both azimuth and elevation, and can make pinpoint hits anywhere on the planet (like blowing a whole through the roof of a building for example) or just about anything else they want to do.

Also the hypothesis is, that if they ever increased their power output to maximum potential, it might get away from them completely and they would be unable to stop it at all. That could cause the planet to begin spinning at a faster rate until it reaches the point where it implodes.

Another hypothesis is, that they create a 2nd wave as an anti-wave to slow down the 1st wave transmitted. They could find out at some point the 2nd wave instead of decreasing intensity actually increases it.

The 4th state of matter (plasma) can be very deadly if misused. If the US Navy and Air Force scientists who work there ever try to go beyond what the known effects of certain power levels are they could very well find it would be their last testing ever done on our blue planet which would go down in cosmic annals as the water planet that used to be.

reply to post by Communicater


Thanks Communicater. S&

..and thanks to TrueAmerican for his new thread Japan warns of massive earthquake and volcanic explosion after the April 7 earthquake.

Japan's Meteorological Agency on Friday warned the country's 20 volcanoes has become alive due to the massive March 11 earthquake, and a study said earthquake over 9.0-magnitude might hit Japan.