More Big Earthquakes? Not really....

I laugh at all the keyboard doomsayers who don't bother to look up the historical and geological records. Someone on Facebook just last week was "worried" about the unusual unprecedented earthquakes in Iceland and Indonesia (both actively volcanic), Spain (which averages 2500 EQ's a year), and Sweden (where there is enough earthquakes to mandate evacuation drills and earthquake-resistent buildings. Someone is claiming "plumes" showing up in the NMFZ....which has several pages of comments on this forum already.
So what do the real scientists say is happening? Nothing more than would be expected from random chance.

More Earthquakes? Not really....

Why is there so many people who would prefer to believe the unlearned but vocal fearmongers? Do you ever think of looking up the facts and history of claims made?

reply to post by stars15k

Earthquakes 8.0 magnitude and above have struck at a record rate since 2004

earthsky.org...

Your source says 8.0 magnitude and above have struck at a record rate since 2004....and explains it as 'the reason earthquakes have struck at a record rate is because of random chance' - ummm...not very convincing.

I agree historically it could be said that earthquakes are not amping up but to state that the recent ones of 7+ are just by chance doesn't really prove a lot. I think more that there is a time span where things are active and a span of time where they are not active but yet that still doesn't explain a lot of the recent activity.

Well, I'll agree. Earthquake activity isn't at a scary new level for setting records. Neither are Tornadoes or Volcanoes, or meteors no one saw coming and can't explain after they cross a national night sky. The extreme winters that kill in one area, while drought kills in another and half of Australia seems to flood recently have all happened before. Yes, Indeed. None of what we're seeing, taken alone, is all that shocking or even notable.

It's this little thing about so MANY different areas producing the same high level of activity....normal by itself...that combines to make for a wild world at the moment and a sense of the other shoe dropping just beyond our line of sight.

How far back do thorough and accurate historical records of earthquakes go? Take the United States, for example, when considering this question.

How old is Earth?

The "real" scientists are still very much in the very early phase of understanding Earthquakes, their history and patterns, as the rest of us.

¢2

reply to post by Sek82

By looking at the Mountain ranges in Washington, Oregon and Colorado, just to name a few...I think it's a safe guess we don't know squat about the true history of our land or what nature is really capable of in the height of a terra-forming tantrum.

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
Your source says 8.0 magnitude and above have struck at a record rate since 2004....and explains it as 'the reason earthquakes have struck at a record rate is because of random chance' - ummm...not very convincing.

It may not convince some people, but it is certainly more convincing than the many youtube alarmists who simply claim there is increased seismic and volcanic activity with no evidence, then go on to speculate as to why (usually involving HAARP or undetected objects in the solar system). We then get these videos promoted as if they're undeniable fact and insulted for daring to refute them.

What this article is saying is that recent earthquakes are "not statistically different" from what we would expect from observed earthquake activity. It is not saying that there is no hint of any increased activity or that increased activity is not possible in the future, just that there is no statistical evidence that there is an increase in large quakes. This is something that many people on here should understand before promoting alarmist (or straight up wrong) videos from youtube.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
Your source says 8.0 magnitude and above have struck at a record rate since 2004....and explains it as 'the reason earthquakes have struck at a record rate is because of random chance' - ummm...not very convincing.

It may not convince some people, but it is certainly more convincing than the many youtube alarmists who simply claim there is increased seismic and volcanic activity with no evidence, then go on to speculate as to why (usually involving HAARP or undetected objects in the solar system). We then get these videos promoted as if they're undeniable fact and insulted for daring to refute them.

What this article is saying is that recent earthquakes are "not statistically different" from what we would expect from observed earthquake activity. It is not saying that there is no hint of any increased activity or that increased activity is not possible in the future, just that there is no statistical evidence that there is an increase in large quakes. This is something that many people on here should understand before promoting alarmist (or straight up wrong) videos from youtube.

Yea, if you read the my post. I didn't say I didn't believe that the increase in Earthquake is "not statistically different" but to say that the reason Earthquakes over 7+ struck at a record rate is chance is not really scientific evidence but to state AGAIN from my original post historically speaking it is probably normal but then again we don't have the historical geological science to go back and tell us that it is normal. So really it's all speculation by a bunch of know it alls.

reply to post by PageAlaCearl

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
So really it's all speculation by a bunch of know it alls.

Well that is one way to look at it It's merely a statistical analysis after all.

I'm basically agreeing with you, but just thought I should point out that the article is stating that there is no evidence of an increase above what we would expect, which is different to saying that there is unequivocal evidence that there is no increase whatsoever. Sure we don't have a thorough historical record to analyse ,but we have about 100 years of (mostly) good data for large earthquakes. During that period we had a similar rate of large earthquakes from 1950 to 1965 compared to the recent 'record rate', but as you said, we can't say for sure what is "normal" over the history of the planet.

What I gathered from the article is that there is no reason to assume that something 'weird' must be going on (as many on ATS believe) to explain the recent rate of earthquakes compared to the 'normal' rate for the last 111 years. It doesn't mean that there definitely isn't something going on, as that is a possibility. But to assume that something weird must be happening would be based on speculation, not the evidence that we have at hand.