It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


There has been a Global Surge in EQ's since 2004 - Geological Society of America

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:46 AM

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Wouldn't fracking or the increase of it since GWB and Cheney approved the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have something to do with this? Fracturing the Earth crust would seem like a terrible idea and hasn't it been proven to cause earthquakes and earthquake swarms?

Fracking may have something to do with the rise of smaller quakes in places like Oklahoma, but I seriously doubt fracking has any causality on the major quakes referred to in the article.

posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:54 AM

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

So nowhere does it say that the has been an overall increase in all magnitudes of earthquakes, only in 'great earthquakes', which, to my understanding doesn't necessarily lead on to there being an increase in earthquakes across the board. It's an important distinction to make....with regards to your assertions of funding etc, in my experience, I haven't seen that. In fact, some of the people I work with love earthquakes so much I swear they write papers about them while they're sleeping....but yeah, carry on dissing the scientists.

I wasn't "dissing" scientists, only debunkers on here.

Some of these major EQ's, releasing the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of megatons of destructive energy are the most interesting. What kind of huge forces are required to unleash such energy? Must they be equally huge? But what are these forces?

The forces that have caused this increase in quakes, which would appear to be many standard deviations from the norm, is what interests people. What has changed from 50 or 100 years ago?

As one poster above speculated, maybe it has to do with an interstellar cloud we are moving through.

posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 06:55 AM
a reply to: Rezlooper

Actually, the debunkers on here never really argued that small quakes weren't on the rise. They said that large ones weren't rising, and yet, they are.

What I remember arguing is that such a small period of time isn't enough to get say they are rising in frequency overall, yes they might be rising in the short amount of time that the data is taken from but in geological terms its like getting data from a second of research.

10 years is what geological terms, a second of our human lives.

You cant even work out how many times your heart beats to say its increasing or decreasing overall,

same goes with 10 years of earthquake data, it cant be used to get conclusive evidence of an overall increase is what I was always saying.

Trying to point out that fact so as to take a bit of fear mongering out because Planet X has a majority of the time jumped to the worst conclusions since they have joined.
edit on 11-11-2014 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 07:27 AM
Could it possibly be simply just because we have more monitoring equipment in more remote areas that are allowing us to find more quakes than we did back in 1900? I mean, I could understand this statement if it were ONLY using the same monitoring station locations as were around in 1900. If they are using more than they were back then, then logically wouldn't they find more quakes?
edit on 11/11/14 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 07:34 AM
It could also be that these things go in cycles much like everything else. Lower cycles of solar activity seem to coincide with periods of higher activity in volcanism, and volcanism and earthquakes are kissing cousins both being part of the planet's own internal processes.

We are entering a period of lower solar activity, so if that is true, we ought to be seeing a period of higher seismicity. At the very least, higher volcanism.

posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 06:42 PM
a reply to: InhaleExhale

So you are saying, that you have no doubt, that nothing significant is acting on the Earth to have caused this doubling of the most massive EQ's? You are certain it is just a statistical anomaly?

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:23 AM

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: InhaleExhale

So you are saying, that you have no doubt, that nothing significant is acting on the Earth to have caused this doubling of the most massive EQ's? You are certain it is just a statistical anomaly?

No I didn't say any of that.

I have doubts about certain posters that need label others debunkers in a jealous fashion after a poster or two enters their thread agreeing with them and maybe adding to their fears.

Where did I say its statistical anomaly?

I said 10 years of Data is no where near enough to conclude if anything is rising overall,

You can use that data to say its increased in the 10 years that the data has been taken from but it cannot give conclusive answer for an overall increase,

Is that so hard to understand?

Not sure how you are arriving at me having no doubts and whatever else you seem to have interpreted.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 07:12 AM
a reply to: InhaleExhale

So you do concede then there is a possibility that the reason for this doubling in massive EQ's, which I concede may just be a statistical anomaly, may actually have a cause that scientists are either unaware of or are covering up? Even a remote possibility?

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 07:34 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah this may all be true, except keep in mind we've only been keeping track of earthquakes for a little over 100 years now. The earth is billions of years old. Heck the human race has been in existence for about 200,000 years. That is a LOT of time for variation.

For all we know, this increase could be a standard fluctuation before settling back down to how it was before. OR maybe the earth was going through a period for the last 100 years or so of decreased earthquake activity and is now going back to the norms.

The human race has trouble understanding time scales and consistently make the mistake of assuming that actions going on within the last so many years is significant. We are just a blip on the timescale of the planet. Earthquake data is too young to get any reliable long term information.
edit on 14-11-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 08:18 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You seem fairly well educated, I'm sure you're familiar with stats and standard deviations.

Well, they looked at the rate of the major EQ's before 2004, what the rate had been for the last 100 years.

Then they looked at the rate from 2004 to 2013.

I would agree that if the rate had gone up 10% or even 20%, we could just be seeing some statistical anomaly. But the rate went up 100%!!! What is one standard deviation for these stats? Well, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was between 10% - 20%. Thus a 100% surge would be 5 to 10 standard deviations from the mean. That means there is a tiny likely likelihood, like less than one in a million, that this is due to random chance.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 09:09 AM
a reply to: Mianeye

Re the situation with the March 2011 Japan quake and the nomenclature. The 7.3 was later determined to be a foreshock of the Mag 9.0 on March 11. That is, the 9.0 was not an aftershock of the 7.3. Instead, it would be classified as the "main shock". It was followed by thousands of aftershocks, the largest being a mag 7.9 IIRC.

As for that list you linked to on USGS, it pretty comprehensive but woefully out of date. The last mag 8-range quakes they list were the two in the Sumatra region on April 11, 2012. However, there have been at least three others since then that for some reason they've not even added yet. We can only wonder why they've not bothered. The three I'm listing below are just from my own notes but they can easily be confirmed by online searches.

8.0 in the Solomon Islands, Feb 6, 2013
8.3 in the Sea of Okhotsk, May 24, 2013
8.2 near Iquique, Chile April 2, 2014

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I understand all of that just fine, but are you understanding what I am saying? We've only been keeping track of earthquake activity for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of (and so one and so forth) of a percentage of the time the earth has been in existence. To me, I'd say that we don't have NEARLY enough data to compile into long term earthquake activity.

Sure there was a change within the last 10 or so years, but so what? Maybe it's temporary. Maybe the time between 1900 and 2004 was the anomaly? We can't know, because we only have data for such a short window of earth's history.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
We can't argue with facts. For a long time I was dubious that there was any significant rise in quake activity, but looking at the data, the uptick in "great quakes" (mag 8.0 Mw or bigger) in the past decade is pretty significant and it would be foolish to not take notice of it.

Whether there has been a similar rise in smaller events is probably an endless debate, because we do in fact have a far more extensive worldwide seismo network now than we did several decades ago, along with better info sharing. But if we get too involved in that argument then we run the risk of missing the bigger picture: major and great quakes account for a very large share of the total energy released by all quake events: one single magnitude 8 quake releases as much energy as one million magnitude 4 quakes, or almost 32,000 mag 5 quakes.

I don't believe we have seen an increase in mag 4 events to that degree (or even mag 5s). We average somewhere around four to five magnitude 5 quakes per day world-wide. We're certainly not seeing the 80 or so per day that would be needed in one year to make up the energy released by a single mag 8! Yes, some of the great quakes themselves will have caused upticks in the stats for smaller quakes. The Tohoku quake produced more than 5,000 aftershocks on its own. But even allowing for the aftershocks of those huge events, the uptick in smaller quakes has probably not matched those of the great ones.

But it's the great quakes that really matter, anyway. They do the damage and they release the most massive amounts of energy.

Also, the five most powerful quakes in modern recorded history have occurred since 1960. All of them have been mag 9.0 or bigger. There was not a single mag 9.0 in the six decades prior to that, going back to 1900. True, Chile's 9.5 in 1960 released almost four times the energy of Sumatra's 9.1 in 2004, but considering that a 9.0 (Japan) occurred less than seven years after Sumatra's, along with all those mag 8-plus events, the amount of energy release by the great quakes of the past decade has been quite phenomenal.

And Cascadia is still building strain. One of these days it will also let go, probably in the great quake range and possibly mag 9 or bigger. The studies of turbidites from its prior major releases show it's well on the cards.

The question is when, and I'm wondering what we may be missing in all this. It seems to me that when we have so many great quakes in a relatively short period of time, in diverse regions of the planet, we have to look to those places where nothing big has happened yet but which have the potential for it. And Cascadia is definitely one of them.

edit on 14/11/14 by JustMike because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 09:46 AM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I understand all of that just fine, but are you understanding what I am saying? We've only been keeping track of earthquake activity for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of (and so one and so forth) of a percentage of the time the earth has been in existence. To me, I'd say that we don't have NEARLY enough data to compile into long term earthquake activity.

Sure there was a change within the last 10 or so years, but so what? Maybe it's temporary. Maybe the time between 1900 and 2004 was the anomaly? We can't know, because we only have data for such a short window of earth's history.

Of course I understand what you are saying, I am open to that possibility, and I'm not ruling it out.

Are you open to the possibility of what I am saying? Are you ruling it out completely, or do you accept that it is possible?

And that is, that something has caused this significant upsurge in quakes, something that science yet doesn't know about or understand, or is keeping quiet about?

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 09:48 AM
a reply to: JustMike

Thanks justMike, good points, you put into words what I was struggling to say. Due to the overwhelming and massive energy these huge quakes release (compared with 4's, 5's etc), they are the most interesting and significant, and if the rate they are occurring changes drastically, and it has, it should be something we are paying attention to and researching.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:06 AM
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Of course I believe it's a possibility. Here's a quote from my first post in the thread:

Yeah this may all be true...

All I want to do is preempt any doom porners who want to jump in the thread and say that this is definitive proof of the end times.

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:10 AM
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
Hope it's okay to butt in with a reply here, though your comment wasn't addressed to me.

My own feeling is that science still knows very little about the dynamics of this planet and the way it balances its immense energies. There could well be other factors in play that scientists and we lay people are not even aware of. Even Plate Tectonics Theory has its flaws and does not fully explain everything in relation to what it proposes vis-a-vis energy release and plate movement.

The trouble is, when science grabs hold of a theory and starts to champion it as "the answer", there's a tendency for the scientists to fall in line and present what is just theory as if it were fact. That annoys the heck out of me.

Regarding the possibility that the recent uptick in great quake activity and hence energy release may be merely an anomaly. Well sure, it may be. The trouble is, there is no way at present that we can determine what the longer-term "pattern" of quake energy release may be. Not world-wide, at any rate. We can only go with what's in front of us. So as we do have that uptick in the past decade then the best thing is try and figure out why, regardless of whether it might be an anomaly or not. We can surely learn something from it.

Like, consider the NMSZ. Is it really a mid-plate anomaly that caused the series of great quakes around the New Madrid region just over 200 years ago? Why there and nowhere else? Is it truly mid plate Or is it actually a conjunction and the apparent Nth American "plate" is not one piece but two separate ones that have collided?

And the Cascadia Subduction Zone: for years, scientists thought of it as the subduction zone that didn't have big quakes. Until Chris Goldfinger made his discovery and opened a whole new realm of research into the CSZ. Now, science has data on that region going back thousands of years, based on the layers of deposits left by the tsunamis from previous huge quakes there. Which begs the question: what other areas may be "quiet zones" but are in reality lethal, sleeping giants like the CSZ?

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:24 AM

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Good catch. Starred and flagged. Anyways, you see even though the amount of large earthquakes have increased, the activity that has increased the most are the smaller earthquakes. Most graphs given by people such as Phage only show large earthquakes from about 3 or 4 and up. They don't show the smaller earthquakes which would be the first sign that worldwide earthquake activity has been increasing. Then there are indirect observations which should also tell people, by logic, that indeed earthquake and volcanic activity has been increasing; and that is the fact that the exponential increase in the weakening of Earth's magnetic shield and the rapid movement of magnetic north are indirect signs that the Earth's core is experiencing dramatic changes which keep increasing.

There are times that I ask myself how is it possible for some people, which I won't name, that to this day continue to refute the overwhelming evidence which shows that indeed the Earth is experiencing an increase in both volcanic/magmatic, and seismic activity as well as other changes. We know that the changes in the Earth's core alongside changes in the sun influence and change Earth's magnetic field. So if we see the Earth's magnetic field going through strange and dramatic changes which are increasing in strength it should logically tell is that these are signs that the Earth's core, and/or the sun are also undergoing dramatic changes. But to some people it seems that such logic escapes them.

Excellent. Edgar Cayce (died 3 Jan 1945) predicted that there would be an eleven (11) degree pole shift during the "Earth Changes" -- last I read there has already been a ten degree shift in the magnetic poles. Is this a precursor to an actual physical shifting of the poles? If so, it would be catastrophic for anything on the surface of the planet.

Cayce predicted that the changes would happen in the 1980's & 90's -- when that didn't happen, many dismissed it as a Cayce "miss." I have maintained there has been merely a delay.

I also believe TPTB have known for quite some time that something is up. They have in their own way been warning the general public. Look at all the shows (TV & movies) with apocalyptic scenarios. It isn't just to scare us, although I think they find that useful to their purposes.
edit on 14-11-2014 by AuranVector because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:46 AM
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE


The great quakes are truly awesome examples of nature at work. And I mean "awesome" in the real sense of the word. I recall reading that Chile's mag 9.5 in 1960 accounted for 25% of the energy released by all quakes in the world for the century (til that date). Twenty-five percent, all letting go in one smaller region in just a few minutes. It's almost impossible to imagine.

Then there's the interrelationships. Can a quake in Sumatra unbalance things enough to cause a subduction zone off Japan to let go seven years later, or is there no connection between them at all? Scientists will tell you there is no causative link. There is no "A causes B", not like they've noted (for example) in the case where larger quakes in Alaska triggered smaller ones in Yellowstone. [AFAIK, this was the first scientifically confirmed case of "remote triggering".]

But what if it's not an "A causes B" kind of link in some cases? What if it's "A leads to B, that leads to C ... and that leads to Q"? I've said it on this site before a while back, but I'll repeat it here: I think earthquake activity is very much like the weather. Namely, we can think of the "Butterfly in Beijing" effect. Okay, we don't literally think a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world can cause a tornado thousands of miles away, but we do know that even very minor changes in weather systems in one place can lead to major changes elsewhere. This has been observed in reality and also tested by very careful, computer modelling.

The weather is all about atmospheric systems, and at the end of the day, they are all about energy movement.

Earthquakes are also about energy movement. The times scales may be very different -- perhaps even years or millennia instead of hours or days -- and the energy interactions are possibly quite different as well. But I feel there is an energy system with quakes. It's just not discerned as such, in the same way that when we get drenched by storms here in Europe, most people don't even know that sometimes, the moisture in those storms (and ergo, the energy!) came from a hurricane that roared into Nth America from the Atlantic weeks earlier. And that hurricane started off the coast of Senegal and picked up energy on its way across the ocean. And that warm air that went out over the coast off Africa had come in over the Sahara from the Mediterranean, after it had crossed Europe.

One big cycle of energy.

Meteorologists know this. They don't claim to know it all, but they can tell us a lot about what weather does and where its energy comes from and how it cycles around and around. But seismologists and geophysicists and the like have nowhere near that good a picture and in many cases, they are still looking for "A created B" causative links. Where they don't see them, they tend to say there is no link, when what they should be saying is that they just don't know.

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:18 PM
As Puterman, myself and others have said for years on ATS Quake Watch, its not the numbers that count, its the size of the quakes or better still the energy released.
It has already been pointed out on this thread that small quakes don't really cause any damage, and it pays to remember it takes 1,000,000,000 (one billion) magnitude 2.0 earthquakes to equal one magnitude 8.0, so the number of all quakes globally mean nothing.

So just considering earthquakes above magnitude 8.
I have data further back than NEIC, thanks to the International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Building Research Institute’s version of Utsu’s research Catalog of Damaging Earthquakes in the World (Through 2001) PC Edition
The data there goes back to 314, that is 1700 years!
There may be more earthquakes in that period than even that shows, a lot of M7.9 get dropped from the data when they possibly were actually over the M8 mark, even today.
Basically what I'm saying is that with M8+ quakes there is less chance of events in the old days prior to 1900 being missed out of the data.
Here are some graphs 314-2014, 1700-2014, and 1900-2014.
I have compressed the height a bit so its easier to see how many quakes there were each year.

Also there a graph which shows year versus mag, based on size ( not exactly energy released, but its a rough indication)
In that graph you can see 3 periods where larger quakes above 8.4 were more prelevant, 1700-1751, 1950-1965 and 2004-2012
To be fair we can't/shouldn't compare period of 51 years, 15 years and 12 years with each other
So lets break it down to just 10 years to cover the main question raised by the OP link.
1700-1710, 3 events (one M9+)
1950-1960, 8 events (four M9+)
2004-2014, 16 events ( two M9+)
when the energy released is calculated;
The calculation used to convert to magnitude to TTNT is "=(10^(4.8+($x*1.5))/4184)/10^6", where x is the magnitude number. Insert this formula in Excel spreadsheet beside a column list of magnitudes, change x to the Column/Row cell Letter/Number in the first row and then copy that down the list and you get your TTNT easily.
1700-1710 = 617,967,171 TTNT
1950-1960 = 4,084,691,299 TTNT
2004-2014 = 1,996,413,063 TTNT
there you can see that 2004-2014 had only half the energy release compared to the period 1950-1960

Perhaps it would have been a more accurate way to present the information rather than the alarmist way that the Geological Society of America has done.
Its amazing what you can do with numbers to make the data fit the argument.
What the Geological Society of America appears to have done is take 104 years and calculate the average number of M8+quakes per year (8) then compared that average to the 10 years 2004-2014 (18) which makes it look like things are getting worse, without taking into consideration the peaks and lows over that first 104 years.
A "Surge" Globally in the last 10 years yes, just like in 1700's and 1950's, but the rest of the article is bias towards a Cascadia worst case scenerio using data that has nothing to do with Cascadia.

I personally don't like the Geological Society of America as an organization, you have to pay to read their papers, so its a profit driven org. They get paid to do research by the govt. (taxpayers), then charge the public (taxpayers) for the results. That sux.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in