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:
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
2011-01-13T16:16:41.000Z,-20.62250,168.45900,7.0000,9.0000,Loyalty Islands. New Caledonia
2011-01-01T09:56:58.000Z,-26.79440,-63.07890,7.0000,576.8000,Santiago del Estero. Argentina
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
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
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
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
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
In this post
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 ++
edit on 7/4/2011 by PuterMan because: To fix a link