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.

 

Here you go ... visual proof of significant increase in large magnitude earthquakes

page: 2
30
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
You only selected a very short period of time...look at 1900 to now or 1950 to now and it looks as though there's been less quakes as of late.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Here's the chart I get from USGS data. Earthquakes 6.5+



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Josonic
 

Here's 1973 on:

It looks more like some quiet years in the 1980's than any increase in the 21st century.

If anyone is interested, here is a very comprehensive catalog. It really doesn't show much in the way of any trends.
earthquake.usgs.gov...


edit on 9/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That's because you are always only looking at either 6.5+ or even 7+ earthquakes. Apparently you don't think that if there is an increase in earthquakes magnitutes 3-6 you believe for some strange reason that it is not really important, but in fact it is.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Statistic Graphs,of Earthquakes.

I believe the first graph is updated daily.


Another site that I thought might be beneficial to you.

Number of Earthquakes by Year


edit on 4-9-2011 by sonnny1 because: more info



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
After looking at Wolfram Alpha for a while, I'm now convinced theres something seriously wrong with its database...

Magnitude 7+ since 1960.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 



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.


You are right, and you are not right. May I explain. The number of earthquakes below magnitude 6.5 that are being detected has dramatically increased over that period of time.

Magnitude 6.5+ earthquakes however we can be fairly confident have been detected with some accuracy since 1930 and the introduction of the Woods Anderson seismograph in 1925, the instrument upon which Richter based his magnitude calculations.

Unfortunately so may people who come up with statistics on the incidence of earthquakes are guilty either intentionally or otherwise of cherry picking data.

First we must consider the cycle of great earthquakes. This is a cycle of somewhere between 35 and 50 years, possibly 40 that may coincide with one of the major sun cycles (subject of another day) but it is sufficient to say that taking figures from 1900 to today the cycle becomes apparent.

Looking at Mag 7, 8 and 9 that we can be certain about the graph looks like this:



If we look at the numbers and energy of magnitude 6.5+ quakes from 1930 (the ones we can be certain about) the graph looks like this:



The next set of graphs I did for another post but they illustrate the folly of using data ONLY from 2000. These do show an increase but we are approaching or at the top of another cycle. Actually i won't post the because it is a massive GIF that goes on for ever. You can see all the graphs here

A favourite point for selective reporting on earthquake numbers is 1975, just about the lowest ebb in the cycle. This type of manipulation is some what reminiscent of another group of 'scientists'. You can see more examples of manipulation in my post Do Earthquake Numbers Matter?

I am NOT slating the OP. People who are not deeply into this can be perfectly well excused for making honest mistakes and I have no problem with that at all.

My problem is with those who go out of their way to falsify the figures.

IF we are at the top of the cycle then next year will be much quieter. If we are not then you possibly may see another mag 9.0 but in my honest opinion the Japan earthquake was the top of the cycle.

With regard to that if you take away the Japan quakes at Honshu which are 'out of the ordinary' and that areas was nor majorly seismic before (hence building nukes?) then the figures for this year are actually way down.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Unfortunately the second link appears to provide inaccurate information. Not only does it start from 1970 which as I have said is a low point, the apparent energy graph is all wrong and is not I suspect based on energy but an erroneous assumption of earthquakes being 'bigger'.

Whilst Richter scales are subject to saturation at higher magnitudes, most earthquakes in the USGS Centennial catalogue have been converted to Mw scale which is a logarithmic measure of their energy in dynes/cm.

Using the calculation 10^(4.8+(Magnitude * 1.5)) we arrive at an approximate value in Joules for the energy release. It is this calculation that my own graphs are based on. You can see the difference!

On that site they said:


Estimated total annual earthquake energy release (magnitude 8 earthquake = 1 = 1,000 magnitude 6 earthquakes) in red; 7-year average in grey.


Yet despite this they show 1960 with the biggest earthquake the world has ever know as lower energy than earlier years?

This graph shows you the difference between that massive mega quake and the more recent ones.




edit on 4/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


On that chart of his the scale goes to 60 yet based on a mag 8 and 1, then a mag 9.5 (Chile) is 177 times stronger



No, sorry his figures are wrong.


edit on 4/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I know this isn't a huge quake, but it is for this area. I actually felt it last night...... We never, ever get earthquakes that we feel here.
earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Your absolutely right. His data has information either left out,or just wrong,which I believe you caught. Good catch! So with that said,and based on knowledge that we know of,and not say 100,to 200 years ago of data,would you say that there is proof of significant increase in large magnitude earthquakes? I think its ebb and flow,but thats MHO.
edit on 4-9-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Mimir
 


Well, the government controls all USGS data ,so, yea, it could be misguided info and as far as whether an earthquake is a 2.0 - 9.0.... it's still an earthquake ! So the increase in earthquakes , in my opinion , has rose tremendously !



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 



Your absolutely right. His data has information either left out,or just wrong,which I believe you caught. Good catch! So with that said,and based on knowledge that we know of,and not say 100,to 200 years ago of data,would you say that there is proof of significant increase in large magnitude earthquakes? I think its ebb and flow,but thats MHO.


Well my suggestion is that the cycle of major quakes is about 40 years or so - difficult to quantify exactly as the top of the curve spreads over a few years.

This is VERY roughly off the top of my head as I have not got all the data together.

Round 1755 Lisbon and others
Round 1800-1815 New Madrid
Round 1857 Fort Tejon
Round 1900-1906 San Francisco et al
Round 1957 to 1964 Chile and others
Round 2004 to today Banda, Tohoku and others

See a pattern? I do. I am working on it. If I am right we just hit the top. There may be an 8+ next year but then we go into a period of lower activity.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Heres my idea on how to correlate the yearly earthquake averages for the last80 yrs or so, perhaps you can correct me if my thinking is whacked.....Can we not....
Take the TOTAL of ALL the quakes?
This could be done i think simply by addition of all the richter readings for the time...
Ie add every single quake detected for the year by reichter degrees
mag 3.3 plus mag 7.6 = 10.9 etc
Then every year wed have an average figure for the amount of earth shake in the entire world....????
we then could compare the years that way to get an average of the years since accurate reportage has been available?
Phage is this possible or is my logic a bit simple?
That will give , i think a comparable figure for each year for ALL earthquake activity and give a truer picture of the situation???
Obvious fallacies anyone? and no im not gonna do the math and make the graph...i gotta go fix my boat.....



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ViP3r
 


Unfortunately my friend you are incorrect. The number of earthquakes is not so important and you cannot possibly equate a mag 2 and a mag 9

This is a comparison of the sizes.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 



This could be done i think simply by addition of all the richter readings for the time...
Ie add every single quake detected for the year by reichter degrees
mag 3.3 plus mag 7.6 = 10.9 etc


Sorry you can't do that as the earthquake scales are logarithmic.

You can do what you are suggesting using energy, which is exactly what I have done, and it shows on average NO increase over and above normal cycles.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Lol yeah.

We are all safe. Nothing major is going on. Please continue to live consumer driven lives based on 90210 lies All is well. Colorado experiencing Earth quakes? No biggie bro's.. EQ in Virginia felt as far north as Canada putting cracks in our Washington Monument? Nothing but a G Thang!

Its so cute how bad most of you wish the good times would last forever and cannot even see truth and signs right in front of you on a daily basis.

Ibetwhenyellowstoneblowsaholeintheunitedstatesthesizeofchinawhichitsrightonscheduletodosoyouwillstilltry
andclaimitsanormalthingoroccurenceorplainhoax!
edit on 4-9-2011 by Old77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Old77
 



I bet when yellowstone blows a hole in the united states the size of china which its right on schedule to do so you will still try and claim its a normal thing or occurence or plain hoax!


Well first off it will not blow a hole the size of China, and second off if it does blow it will indeed be a natural occurrence. Thirdly it is not on schedule to do so, not in our lifetimes anyway. Geological time scales are just way beyond human experience, and the same goes for earthquakes cycles (unless you were alive in 1755 or earlier?)

Just because humans get in the way of nature does not mean that in the great scheme of the planet these human ants are of any significance. Here today gone tomorrow as far as Gaia is concerned.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
uhm.

I know this will probably not mean much considering I live on part of the Ring of Fire, but this year there have been probably 20 to 30 small quakes occurring.

When I say small I mean small, but in all my years living here they have never happened like this.
There may have been 2 or 3 a year but NEVER more than a dozen , So when I have counted at least 2 dozen in the last 365 days or so well it's unheard of.

Now, to clarify what I mean by small.

I mean, one or 2 second shakes.
Sometimes moving one direction, and then another day moving in another direction. The other day the olive oil bottles on top of my fridge were rattling because of it.

They are quite small and sometimes unnoticed if not for the fact I have been looking for them since I have felt them more often.

I live in South East Asian islands by the way.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


Not quite sure which area you mean exactly but Banda sea and Ceram sea have been active as have the Solomans.

Don't forget we ARE at the top of an active period so you are likely to probably have felt more than in earlier years, and of course looking for them makes them more apparent!


edit on 4/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
22 flags? *sigh*

Well it is always tempting to take something like earthquakes and look at it from a simple numbers standpoint....it is extremely misleading to do so.

Puterman has already taken much time, effort and proffesionalism to explain it oh so well in a way that even I understand.


We have to look at the energy. Yes, ofcourse a whole bunch of small quakes in one area might be indicative of something going on in that one specific location, but you can NOT apply to the overall picture of the world.

For example: Yellowstone has a swarm this year (imaginary now) of let's say....4,000 micro quakes. It is part of the natural cycle of the park and doesn not mean it is about to erupt....nor does it mean the whole world has had an increase in tectonic activity. Those 4,000 quakes wouldn't even add up to one 8.0.

Anyways...thanks to Puterman for putting it into terms that are clear. We have seen a lot of natural disasters this year. I agree that we seem to be building....but as Puterman said, it is a natural cycle.




top topics



 
30
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join