Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
It is good to see the fruits of technology. For instance information technology:

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Now given that 2012 was the "special year" and the solstice the "spcecial day," one might suppose that 2012 would give us signs (or data). One claims it is seismic activity. Then let us compare SIGNIFICANT earthquakes in 2012 with that of previous years. Let's try 2011:

2011 12 31 - Youngstown-Warren Urban Area, Ohio - M 4.0
• 2011 11 06 - Lincoln County, Oklahoma - M 5.6
• 2011 08 23 - Louisa County, Virginia - M 5.8
• 2011 08 23 - Southwest of Trinidad, Colorado - M 5.3
• 2011 05 11 - Spain - M 5.1
• 2011 03 11 - Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan - M 9.0 Fatalities 20,352
• 2011 02 28 - Arkansas - M 4.7
• 2011 02 21 - Christchurch, New Zealand - M 6.1 Fatalities 181
• 2011 01 18 - Pakistan - M 7.2 Fatalities 3

Now let us look at 2012:

2012 05 22 - Bulgaria - M 5.6
• 2012 04 11 - Michoacan, Mexico - M 6.5
• 2012 04 11 - off the west coast of northern Sumatra - M 8.2
• 2012 04 11 - off the west coast of northern Sumatra - M 8.6
• 2012 03 20 - Oaxaca, Mexico - M 7.4

Does one notice a difference? One would expect the activity to increase significantly in 2012, but it doesn't. Also, Sumatra is on the ring of fire so it is only expected that there should be burning. 2012 shows itself to be, more or less, totally uneventful when it comes to prominant, notable seismic activity. In fact, it is quite quiet!?




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
i have read through this entire thread and see 2 massive failures by the OP in basic understanding, and scientific fact.

Problem 1:
What is the OPs definition of an "event" ?

An "event" could be anything from a volcanic fart of gas and a couple small rocks taking a skyward journey to a full blown caldera explosion.

Problem 2:
The absolute refusal to define the data any further than using the word "event". It just seems like an arbitrary number pulled out of the hat by someone who does not themselves understand the data. If the data is even legit, that is.


I see there have been other posters asking for clarification of the OPs definition of an event, with nothing to support the arguments being put forward.

If you going to make a claim, YOU have to support it





new topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join