reply to post by Gerizo
Actually the earthquakes are increasing. In another thread I calculated it out and it definitely showed an increase. So why don't you post data
that proves that it is not increasing? I am not debating it with you either since I have observed your tactics on here and I know that's what will be
coming next. You can take it or leave it. But I won't sit back and watch you post lies to people. The earthquakes have been increasing in size and
strength over the last decade.
That's just plain wrong. There has been no increase. Please provide a link to where you did these calculations.
The only thing that is increasing is the ability to locate quakes.
You write on this page.
the number of major earthquakes has been rising steadily over the past decade, and the 2600 major earthquakes that we are on pace to have this
year is going to far surpass all of the previous years on this chart….
1. It's not true that quakes are steadily rising. The graph is not monotonic is it?
2. There is no pace to quakes. They do not happen at regular intervals.
Overall quakes are seen to be independent random events. The relative standard deviation is 0.22 indicating that there is a great deal of fluctuation
from year to year. There simply is not enough data here to determine if there is a trend.
Due to the manner in which earthquakes have been recorded, the only long term data is a record of larger quakes. Due to the log nature of the scale,
these larger quakes represent the bulk of the energy released by quakes. Larger quakes, i.e. the overall energy released by quakes, are not
If, as many geologists claim, the reason for the higher number of major earthquakes is our constantly improving ability to detect them, then
why was the number of earthquakes magnitude-6.0 or greater fairly consistent between 1973 and 1999?
That is a simple question you should have been able to figure out on your own.
From the following page we learn that 1976 was a year with more big quakes than average, yet your plot misses the point by plotting numbers of quakes
which is not that important because it does not reflect energy release.
You are drawing unwarranted conclusions from the data. It's a commonly made mistake. You see it in gamblers and day traders.
Barack Obama has already declared more major disasters in less than three years than any other president has ever declared over an entire four
It doesn't matter if that is true or not. That does not imply anything about future events.
These quakes opened up deep fissures in the ground
That is another misconception about quakes. They can only open shallow fissures due to horizontal movements of ground.
Over the past few years, the “Ring of Fire” around the Pacific Ocean has become unusually active. We have seen absolutely devastating
earthquakes hit places such as Chile and New Zealand. Earlier this year, Japan experienced the worst earthquake that it has ever seen and it produced
a tsunami that was so devastating that it will never be forgotten.
Again you make inferences that are unwarranted. Japan has experienced large quakes. This is just the largest one that has been recorded. It was
There were quakes of 8.4 and 8.6 respectively in 864 and 869. The values are guesses based on what people wrote down about the events. In 1489 another
8.6. Big quakes are known to the area. Before these times there is lack of evidence from first hand accounts.
A scan of the page shows that huge quakes are not common. They occur sporadically. They have some sort of random distribution.
Seeing clustering in random data is normal. You expect that to happen. You expect to have clusters in random data. There is something called the
Seismologists know from statistical tests that earthquakes appear to be random. They deal with that when working with earthquake data. They avoid
seeing trends in short term data samples.
edit on 16-11-2012 by stereologist because: read the next post