Database shows rise in volcanic events in 2011, and an even sharper rise in 2012

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Well, as OP of this thread, it is my duty to inform you all that 2012 ended with the following numbers:


Volcano Activity - 80 events

Volcano Eruption - 47 events

Total: 127 events


Those are the raw data. Draw your own conclusions...




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Number of volcanoes active in a year is an average of 56 with a range of 50 to 70 active volcanoes over the last 4 decades.
volcano.si.edu...

volcano.si.edu...

The answer to this common question depends upon use of the word "active." At least 20 volcanoes will probably be erupting as you read these words (Italy's Stromboli, for example, has been erupting for more than a thousand years); roughly 60 erupted each year through the 1990s; 154 in the full decade 1990-1999; about 550 have had historically documented eruptions; about 1300 (and perhaps more than 1500) have erupted in the Holocene (past 10,000 years);



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Number of volcanoes active in a year is an average of 56 with a range of 50 to 70 active volcanoes over the last 4 decades.
volcano.si.edu...

volcano.si.edu...

The answer to this common question depends upon use of the word "active." At least 20 volcanoes will probably be erupting as you read these words (Italy's Stromboli, for example, has been erupting for more than a thousand years); roughly 60 erupted each year through the 1990s; 154 in the full decade 1990-1999; about 550 have had historically documented eruptions; about 1300 (and perhaps more than 1500) have erupted in the Holocene (past 10,000 years);



Here is my answer for you, stereologist:


2006 - 62

2007 - 68

2008 - 49

2009 - 58

2010 - 68

2011 - 112

2012 - 127 events



only the raw data, no comments...



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


Your raw data is from where? The number of events means what?

The fact remains that there has not been an increase. You can pretend that something exists but we know that volcanic activity has not increased.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Thanks OP for the thread, I had been thinking of starting a thread on this topic but never got around to it.

I remember one day in 2012 there were THREE eruptions in New Zealand (one submarine), ALL in the same day!

In the last two years we have heard about volcanoes erupting that have been dormant for thousands of years - but I guess that is happening because we are all more connected now through the internet, youtube, etc.


Here is a good site which keeps track of weekly active volcanoes, but doesn't offer much info from decades past for comparison.

Volcano watch
edit on 7-1-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
reply to post by stereologist
 



Look, this is why I'm not going to discuss "long term data". Because I know you're going to use the good old argument of "it appears to be increasing because in the past it was underreported, and only recently all the minor eruptions started to be properly reported".

I won't go into that trap.

This thread is entirely based on SHORT TERM data. And this is what I want to discuss here.

In the year 2006, volcanic events were reported as accurately as in 2011. In 2006, the internet already existed, and the world population was already over 6 billion people.

So, the increase in volcanic events in 2011 and 2012, compared to 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 is a REAL PHENOMENON.



So, explain that to me:


Why in 2011, exactly the year before 2012 (THE YEAR OF THE MAYAN "PROPHECY") there was such a sharp increase in volcanic events, compared to the previous five years?

And why the first quarter of 2012 appears to indicate this year will be even more active than 2011?

WHY???

Is it just one more "coincidence"???



How can you ask why when you only wish to discuss short term data?

Do you not understand how flawed that why question is when you wish really not to discuss why?

It looks scary so lets not really understand why just ask why and deny that to know why you simply cannot look at 6 years of data.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
There are many different eruptive modalities associated with volcanism from flows, to phreatic events, out gassing, lahars, etc.

To lump these together and to neglect the relative energies of similar events leads to preposterous conclusions of no value.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GLontra
 


Your raw data is from where? The number of events means what?

The fact remains that there has not been an increase. You can pretend that something exists but we know that volcanic activity has not increased.




As it is VERY CLEAR in the first post of this thread, the raw data comes from the RSOE EDIS Database:

hisz.rsoe.hu...


Now you can keep PRETENDING that you don't know where the raw data comes from and what it means.

###SNIPPED###.
edit on 7-1-2013 by GLontra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 



As it is VERY CLEAR in the first post of this thread, the raw data comes from the RSOE EDIS Database:

hisz.rsoe.hu...


Now you can keep PRETENDING that you don't know where the raw data comes from and what it means.

Apparently, you did not understand the request.

I know you linked to a sit with a database, but that does not indicate where these numbers came from. Where on that site do the numbers come from? How did you arrive at those values? Please provide where these numbers came from.

I will ask again: Your raw data is from where? The number of events means what?

For those unaware of being clear in providing data it is hardly sufficient to provide a reference such as "that site." What we need to know is where on that site were the numbers. Obviously, the numbers were not on the indicated page. Obviously, there is no definition of what is meant by an event on that page.

So please enlighten us as to how you collected those values.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
There is a European team of scientists studying this. They already noticed the increase and say it may just be part of a cycle the earth is going through. It's not a good cycle though
Nothing to do with manmade either. I should try to find the link to this research again. It was one of those back door thingys.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
earth quakes in the verry old days would have been a thing to fear.
why do we Not have much from history to say that they had earth quakes?
some yes but I think they would say some thing like.
"the Gods are angry we must sacrifice some virgins, um! do we have any?"

it could be from gravity? from the earth geting hot at the core?
humans have moved a LOT of earth all over.
from mines to sky scrapers.
how much heavy are all the buildings in the Big american city's?
10 million tons or more? put that on a fault line!!!



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 



it could be from gravity? from the earth geting hot at the core?
humans have moved a LOT of earth all over.
from mines to sky scrapers.
how much heavy are all the buildings in the Big american city's?
10 million tons or more? put that on a fault line!!!

Quakes and volcanic activity are not changing over the long term.

1. Gravity is not changing.
2. The temperature at the core takes a very long time to reach the surface, i.e. millions of years
3. Quakes are due to crustal events, not the core
4. Large and heavy objects can and do bend the ground beneath them, but do not appear to be related to quakes
5. Man can influence some quakes by pumping fluids into drill holes
www.usgs.gov...



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





i have read where the disappearing ice sheets and receeding glaciers are allowing the landmasses to rise a little...

and the thinner ocean seafloor crust of the Earth is being pushed down because of the extra weight of more water


ergo.... the bottom of the ocean plates and the continental plates are rerouting the Hot, Mantle beneath the outer crust of the planet...

hence , inactive volcanos are again coming to life and new underwater smokers are on the rise worldwide



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Volcanic activity is on the rise? Indeed, it has its own cycles and is natural. Thanks to volcanic activity we have the land mass we do, I think.

Since 12.21.2012 I have noticed a decline in idiocy after a spike on that day. Let's hope the trend continues.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 



i have read where the disappearing ice sheets and receeding glaciers are allowing the landmasses to rise a little...

and the thinner ocean seafloor crust of the Earth is being pushed down because of the extra weight of more water


ergo.... the bottom of the ocean plates and the continental plates are rerouting the Hot, Mantle beneath the outer crust of the planet...

hence , inactive volcanos are again coming to life and new underwater smokers are on the rise worldwide


The "buoyancy" of the crust is known as isostacy. Eroding mountains is met with a rise of the land as well. Isostatic changes are found in many places in the world. Can you point out how volcanism is increasing in places where isostatic change is greatest?

This change in the crust is not necessarily doing any rerouting of the mantle. The crust is floating on top of the mantle and always has been.

So to claim that this is making inactive volcanoes come to life does not follow. Why shouldn't these changes as you suggest make active volcanoes dormant? Why shouldn't smokers become less active?

You bring up an interesting point in that there are many more volcanic events under the oceans than on land.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by stereologist
 





i have read where the disappearing ice sheets and receeding glaciers are allowing the landmasses to rise a little...

and the thinner ocean seafloor crust of the Earth is being pushed down because of the extra weight of more water


ergo.... the bottom of the ocean plates and the continental plates are rerouting the Hot, Mantle beneath the outer crust of the planet...

hence , inactive volcanos are again coming to life and new underwater smokers are on the rise worldwide


I'm curious to see where you read this information.

While glacial rebound is a fact, most of it happened after glaciers several kilometers thick quickly retreated after the end of the last ice age - and only lasted for a few hundred/thousand years.

The glaciers that have retreated over the past couple of centuries in comparison have been tiny, maybe dozens or a couple hundred feet thick, retreating a few thousand feet or a couple of kilometers, as opposed to the hundreds of kilometers they retreated at the end of the last ice age.

Also, the most significant melt of the past few decades has been in the Arctic - and for the most part there is no land under this ice. Greenland has experienced some melting - but again at the most a couple hundred feet of thickness - miniscule compared with the melting of the last end of the ice age.

As for water in the oceans - how much Earth is ocean? 70%? And this by definition is spread fairly evenly within a short period of time - or else we would see more coastal flooding in areas near to glacial or ice melt such as the Northern coasts of Canada and Europe - but we don't - we see gradual rises in ocean levels spread throughout the whole world - such as the Maldives - quite far from any melting glaciers or ice.

There is no doubt tectonic activity on our planet has increased dramtically and statistically significantly over the past few decades - and the cause is not Earth based.

Here is a chart from the USGS that clearly shows rising earthquake activity over the long term:



USGS rising EQ chart link

The trend is obvious unless you are in denial. Enjoy!



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



While glacial rebound is a fact, most of it happened after glaciers several kilometers thick quickly retreated after the end of the last ice age - and only lasted for a few hundred/thousand years.

Isostacy is more than glacial rebound. For example, it is causing Mid-Atlantic US coastlines to sink.


There is no doubt tectonic activity on our planet has increased dramtically and statistically significantly over the past few decades - and the cause is not Earth based.

That's completely false. There has been no change.


The trend is obvious unless you are in denial. Enjoy!

You need to stop using hoax sites. That graph has many huge problems with it. The same crank chart has appeared here many times.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

That's completely false. There has been no change.



That is just an opinion - based on your perspective, which of course you are entitled to.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 




That is just an opinion - based on your perspective, which of course you are entitled to.

That is a typical falsehood.

I have already posted the clear evidence from volcanologists that show no change.

That certainly trumps the sort of poorly constructed hoax site others bother to post.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
For those that are unfamiliar with why the plot above is meaningless gibberish here are two reasons:

1. There are nearly 1000 times more seismographs today than there were in 1900. That means many more quakes are detected today than in 1900. The graph does not correct for that.
2. Equipment today uses computers to locate quakes. Many more quakes can be located today that could before the advent of computers in seismology. The graph does not correct for that.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join