Massive DECREASE in seismic activity in 2011 worldwide!!

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Massive DECREASE in seismic activity in 2011 worldwide!!



Has PuterMan finally lost it? Should he be committed to the funny farm? Probably, but not so fast! This is a very small part of my study of 2011 which I will release towards the end of January in which I will examine each of the 50 Flinn-Engdahl seismic regions separately.

I realise 2011 is not done yet, but even if we have 2 x mag 7 today or tomorrow it will make very little difference to the figures.

So first of all here are the aggregate global figures for 2001 through to 2011 for earthquakes of Magnitude 5 or greater.



It is plain as a pikestaff that there have been more earthquakes and more energy release than any year in the past decade so PuterMan just WTH are you on about?

As I have said in many threads on ATS since the Tohoku earthquake, this was a pretty unique event in that it was not expected and was way out of the normal for the area. The area is FE geographic regions 226 to 230 inclusive which are a part of seismic region 19.

The differences between 2011 and the norm, based on the average numbers between 1963 and 2010 inclusive, can be seen here

Magnitde,2011,Av Pre, Diff
Mag 5, 712, 34, 678
Mag 6, 78, 3, 75
Mag 7, 5, 1 (0.3), 4

I have counted Mag 7 as 1 but the average is actually 0.3. Other numbers have also been rounded up.

Ignoring the 9+ for a minute this is a huge energy difference, and 75 mag 6 earthquakes is a substantial proportion of the total number of Mag 6 for the year (204).

So if Honshu/Tohoku has been so wildly different what would it have looked like if the Mag 9.1 never happened?



What I have done here is remove the Mag nine and all excess values from Japan leaving the average figures. I have also removed the Banda Aceh mag 9 but no other values from that one since the count of mag 6 quakes actually fell after that one. Its effect on figures, other than its own energy was relatively small.

Obviously, if you subtract Japan and leave the norm, there has been a massive decrease in seismicity in other areas. In terms of Petajoules of energy released worldwide it would have ranked as bottom against the previous decade.

The magnitude equivalent would have been an 8.246 against the next lowest in 2008 of Mag 8.281

Magnitude equivalent is the Magnitude value if all the energy released in the year had been released as a single earthquake. For the analysis of which areas saw a big decrease I am afraid you will have to wait for the full report.

Is this subtraction a valid method? Yes it is since each seismic region can be looked at as a separate entity. Interplay between regions as stress moves along the boundaries is a much more complex subject and may form a part of the fuller study but the effects over these large seismic regions are small.

Details of how the data is derived and of the Flinn-Engdahl regions can be found here: 2011 Report methodology




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
But ATS told me that the Reptilians are using HAARP to cause earthquakes! I'm co confused.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
We do not posses the technology to play with earthquakes.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
There may have been an overall decrease globally, but more regions that don't regularly see larger EQ's, have experienced much more in 2011 than they have in many recent years. Mineral Virginia, Southwest Virginia, New Madrid, Upstate New York, east-central Ohio, Oklahoma....just to mention a few.

Maybe the seismic activity is decreasing in the "normal" areas, but are actually increasing in "less prone" areas.
edit on 12/30/2011 by DarknessMatters because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
A massive decrease in seismic activity would be a bad thing I would think. That means that stress and pressure are building up, which means, bigger earthquakes if I understand plate tectonics and general EQ knowledge correctly?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkblade71
 



A massive decrease in seismic activity would be a bad thing I would think. That means that stress and pressure are building up, which means, bigger earthquakes if I understand plate tectonics and general EQ knowledge correctly?


Yes indeed that is a possibility. It is also possible however that the huge release of Japan relieved stress in other areas as well. I may know better when I have finished looking at each area. Certainly there seems to be a connection between Japan and the Vanuatu Islands which went very quiet after Banda Aceh in 2004/5

reply to post by DarknessMatters
 



but more regions that don't regularly see larger EQ's, have experienced much more in 2011 than they have in many recent years. Mineral Virginia, Southwest Virginia, New Madrid, Upstate New York, east-central Ohio, Oklahoma....just to mention a few.


I guess this depends what you term as recent years. Whilst the Virginia quake was the biggest recently it was not unprecedented neither was Colorado.

New Madrid/Up state NY and the others in my opinion have mainly been caused by injection and are not attributable to any change in tectonics/faulting in the area, with the probable exception of the shift in the Wilzetta fault in OK, but again my full analysis may tell me more.

I appreciate that people are obviously concerned about US continental quakes, but they are a very minor part of overall global seismicity, but that is not intending to denigrate it.

edit on 30/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknessMatters
There may have been an overall decrease globally, but more regions that don't regularly see larger EQ's, have experienced much more in 2011 than they have in many recent years. Mineral Virginia, Southwest Virginia, New Madrid, Upstate New York, east-central Ohio, Oklahoma....just to mention a few.

Maybe the seismic activity is decreasing in the "normal" areas, but are actually increasing in "less prone" areas.
edit on 12/30/2011 by DarknessMatters because: (no reason given)


The one in Virginia was only a 5. something. Not big at all. And no EQ in SW Virginia. Only the one up north. There were several 3.0-4.5 after shocks that shook things right up until last month when I think the last one was but still not a big quake and this area does get quakes occassionally.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 

The word "big" doesn't really apply to the Mineral VA EQ. After all, it DID crack the Washington Monument and was felt in Chicago, Upstate NY and in to NYC and the Carolinas. Nope, it wasn't big at all. Sometimes, the magnitude number doesn't mean much.

Now, slight sarcasm aside...

Don't get stuck on mere numbers...consider what's below the surface in a particular area, that determines the overall effect of an EQ (ie; sediment/bedrock composition). And yes, southwest VA had a small EQ northwest of Tazewell VA, not far from the VA/WV border, approximately 2 weeks or so ago.


edit on 12/30/2011 by DarknessMatters because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknessMatters
 


It was big for the area, and only a few points higher you have 6.3 and the damage done in Canterbury, NZ so yes the geology is important as regards the end result of the earthquake.

Numbers are always irrelevant and I only include them because people do seem stuck on them so when you say


Don't get stuck on mere numbers


I understand where you are coming from both from effect and release. Nearly all 'ancient' earthquakes are recorded by the intensity and at the end of the day that is what matters on the ground.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
So it seems 2011 was almost a ``peak`` in energy... do you expect less energy to be released in 2012 or more?

Me thinks the solar activity has something to do with it...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Hi Vitch, yes I do expect fewer quakes in 2012 and less energy as I believe that we have passed the peak of the current high energy outflow and will be rolling down the curve towards a bottoming out around 2030/40.

As it happens this does also coincide with the Sun's output which is going to be markedly decreased over the next 20 to 30 years. The Solar Max in 2013 is a damp squib compared to other cycles and these is some evidence to suggest that whilst there are bigger CMEs in a low Solar output, that the incidence of CMEs actually decreases earthquakes.

There is evidence to link the supposed 9/56 cycle of earthquakes with the sunspot cycle and certainly the evidence of mega quakes does seem to support this as the sun cycle is about 55 years.

I do however expect a possible mag 8 to 8.5 during 2012 but i cannot give a location yet other than to say it won't be Honshu but could be Tokai or the Philippines/PNG or Alaska.

More of that later in the full report.

edit on 30/12/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
This thread is pure turd.

I'm no EQ tard but even I can see an INCREASE in energy released.

Why would you remove earthquakes from a graph and say "Hey look, seismic activity is decreasing"?

Increase or decrease, it matters not. Earthquakes happen, sometimes they don't happen and the world isn't ending by Elenin or 2012.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OrNaM3nT
 


Yes we do, and for a long time. Don't let yourself think that we know everything we know. We know some things that we don't know.

It takes a few readings for that to make sense.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Decreasing? Well OK, there some kind of storm just blasting wind nonstop at our house, its the kind cme's cause. Yellowstone was seismic, and other regions, and earth decided to push up some islands on the Africa/Middle east fault lines.

I'm wondering what the balancing is going to be.

www.newscientist.com...

Decreasing?
edit on 30-12-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Earthquakes Not Getting More Common, Study Says



A geophysicist and statistician have analyzed data on earthquakes since 1900 and concluded that, contrary to popular belief (and the assertions of some researchers), earthquakes have not, in fact, grown more common in recent years:

earthquakes

2012 Outlook: Huge Quakes Not on the Rise



Scientists do note that although the risk of major earthquakes has not increased recently, that does not mean the ongoing risk is small or should be ignored, "particularly in areas of known seismic hazard, such as California," Shearer said. As to whether or not the world should expect major earthquakes in 2012, "major earthquakes occur almost every year," Shearer said. "There is nothing special about the year 2012 from a scientific point of view."

huge-earthquake



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OrNaM3nT
 


You are joking right? We definitely do, and have.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrNaM3nT
We do not posses the technology to play with earthquakes.


ummm actually we do , detonate a nuclear explosion on a fault line and watch what happens



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Beautiful work, as usual.

Somehow, I'm not comforted by the decrease. Perhaps particularly that it's such a decrease over a decade or so.

That is, wouldn't that be an indicator that things may be locking together for a MORE massive release when such releases???

I don't think the verse applies to geology but the one about . . .

". . . when they cry "PEACE! PEACE!" then comes sudden destruction."

comes to mind.

I wish I was more comforted by the news. LOL.

An idle curiosity is coming to mind as I ponder the above. I don't know if you want to bother with it, or not.

We've had Banda Ache . . . and Japan . . . What 5 other areas do you think would be the

MOST LIKELY

however remote the possibility

of a 9.X quake?

Just your experienced guesstimate would be fine with me. Not asking for bothersome calculations or anything.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Logman
 



This thread is pure turd.

I'm no EQ tard but even I can see an INCREASE in energy released.


Can you? Do you even know what the earthquake energy is? Do you know how to calculate it?

No, thought not.

I made it quite clear that if you subtract the huge energy of the Tohoku quake which was unique, then what you are left with is a massive decrease in energy across the other areas output globally during 2011.

You however choose to come on the thread and admit to having no abilities in this area yet feel qualified to trash the thread with a childish comment that you do not even bother to support.

Now I have no problem whatsoever if you can prove my statement wrong and I will be the first to admit that I can and have been wrong in the past. I spend many many hours every day examining earthquakes and I like to think that I have a little knowledge in this area.

So if, excluding the Tohoku area earthquake, energy has been higher this past year, prove it. I am all ears.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


I stated


It is plain as a pikestaff that there have been more earthquakes and more energy release than any year in the past decade so PuterMan just WTH are you on about?


Never mind, I do understand that it is normal on ATS to make comments without reading the content.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join