World Earth Quake History 1 A.D. to 2010

reply to post by Phage

There weren't many seismographs 200 years ago much less 2,000. For that reason alone the graph in the OP is meaningless.

The graph appears to draw from historical accounts of earthquakes referenced from numerous sources online. Of course these events were not measured with modern equipment, but historians wouldn't need a seismograph to feel and record earthquakes as events.

reply to post by dusty1

And they wouldn't know about earthquakes elsewhere in the world. The world was a much bigger place 2000 years ago, with a lot fewer people, in a lot fewer places. Even fewer of those people recorded earthquakes. Do you think there were no earthquakes in Chile 2000 years ago? There are no records of them so they didn't happen? Kind of like a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it.

The graph is meaningless other than to indicate an increasing awareness of earthquakes


[edit on 2/28/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by dusty1
This seems to show that we are in a unique period of geologic history. What do you think?

I think they didn't have seismographs 200, 1000, 2000 years ago. Call me crazy...

Originally posted by minute2midnight

Originally posted by dusty1
This seems to show that we are in a unique period of geologic history. What do you think?

I think they didn't have seismographs 200, 1000, 2000 years ago. Call me crazy...

There are other way to measure earthquakes even 1000 to 2000 years ago.
earth faulting and geological damage to the ground leaves easy to find evidence for any geologist.

What i find interesting is the hockey stick of the google 2009 year earthquake record looks like the global warming chart.

Is there something we are not seeing in the solar system that affects both global temperature and earthquakes.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[edit on 28-2-2010 by ANNED]

Not all earthquakes make an impact on the land... some are too small and wouldn't be detected way back then. The chart records all quakes, not just the massive ones.

reply to post by Phage

And they wouldn't know about earthquakes elsewhere in the world. The world was a much bigger place 2000 years ago, with a lot fewer people, in a lot fewer places. Even fewer of those people recorded earthquakes. Do you think there were no earthquakes in Chile 2000 years ago? There are no records of them so they didn't happen? Kind of like a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it.

You make a valid point.

But is it possible that there was a relative lull in earthquake activity for a portion of human history? Sometimes I begin to wonder when I hear people say that things have always been as they are now.

I liked your tree analogy. Let me lay this one on you. You and I grow up at the foot of Mount Vesuvius in Pompeii. We each live to be over one hundred years old, and we assume mountains always rumble and belch smoke. Frightened young people come to us, because recently the mountain is unusually active. We tell them there is nothing to worry about. Everything is completely normal..........

Then your tree fell on a person.

Now the forest is starting to fall on people.

reply to post by dusty1


Thousands of years ago the Earth was far less populated and it was far more difficult for people great distances away to communicate with each other. Without sensitive modern equipment to detect quakes and without global communication technology there would be no way to report every single quake that took place. In fact I think it would be unlikely to even report a majority of the quakes.

Edit to Add: Phage beat me to the punch.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by dusty1

There is no logic to your analogy. There is no indication that there is any increase in earthquake activity levels. This does not mean that powerful earthquakes are not dangerous. They occur and when they do people die and property gets destroyed. People in certain areas are certain to be hit at some point in time.

[edit on 2/28/2010 by Phage]

If the OP's chart is correct, showing a meaningful increase in quakes since the turn of the century.
It could very well be related to drilling into the earth and extracting billions and billions of gallons of oil and water. Mining also can contribute. Think about the rearrangement of aggregates like concrete and steel.
Cities. All weight displacement. Most since 1900 as well.

I've noticed something this last decade that has interested me pertaining to something equally as relative to Earthquakes, and that is Volcanic activity.

There has been a rather sharp rise as of late of Volcanic activity, with several rather large eruptions having taken place around the world...

Using the same method the OP used in comparative searches using google, I discovered the same thing applied to Volcanic eruptions, with a graph at the top of the page showing a steep rise in volcanism...

I mean we even have a volcano erupting in the Carribean lol....

Mexico, Japan, the Phillipines, Alaska, Russia - lots of eruptions.

While the same arguement can be used pertaining to the rise in volcanism as it's being applied to the OP about earthquakes, I've sensed this well before I did any google comparisons, which interestingly seemed to validate my suspicions.

One item that has me concerned about this recent rash of earthquake activity is how the domino effect is supposedly setting off unrelated earthquakes around the globe - what's stopping this domino effect from, lets say, creating a weaker crust above the Yellowstone caldera and thus setting that monster off? - or one of the other super volcanoes on this planet?

Star to the OP and and I have to say Phage, I always respect what you bring to a thread But can you say without a doubt that there doesn't appear to be an uprising in global activity?

reply to post by Phage


Let me tell you something buddy, oh wait, sorry, (I had to dust off some of the ashes from Mount Vesuvius, kinda stings the eyes). Where was I? I was going to give you the what for. My point is this. Your chart goes back to 1900. You have lived during a time of frequent earthquake activity.

The data does show what is happening is "normal' for the last 100+years. You have no data prior to that. We do have a few historical accounts. You conclude all is normal, and you may be right.

However, you cannot prove you are correct. While you are very knowledgeable, it is still limited knowledge.

I simply question your absolute belief that in the last two thousand years there is no increase in earthquake activity.

reply to post by dusty1
what is the actual address to that link
your link opens up to a page of links.

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy


At the top click "search other dates" type in 1 AD or whatever time you want to start with. You can also type in "Asia earthquake history time line" or "Europe earthquake history time line"

The graph draws from the various links below it.


This is just something to needle Phage with.

reply to post by dusty1

Ok...
buddy

You're free to believe what ever you wish. I prefer to have a bit of evidence.

[edit on 2/28/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dusty1

 

Ok...
buddy

You're free to believe what ever you wish. I prefer to have a bit of evidence.

[edit on 2/28/2010 by Phage]

I am pretty sure your link was to a site that cited 7.0 quakes and above.
A mere fraction of overall sizemic activity.

Not only do were there fewer people to report earthquakes, we also have the Middle Ages separating us and 1 AD. If we can't even find all of Livy's history of Rome, how are we expected to have records of every minor quake that occurred in every corner of the globe?

reply to post by Phage

You're free to believe what ever you wish. I prefer to have a bit of evidence.

What do you think of this?

Natio nal Geophysical Data Center

I found the table playing around with this page NGDC Significant Earthquake Database

[edit on 28-2-2010 by dusty1]

reply to post by dusty1

5,500 earthquakes since 2150 B.C., I would think there would have been more than that. Hmm, quite a few years in the old days with no earthquakes at all. Interesting.

Oh, I see, it's not a complete dataset. It's filtered.

The Significant Earthquake Database contains information on destructive earthquakes from 2150 B.C. to the present that meet at least one of the following criteria: Moderate damage (approximately $1 million or more), 10 or more deaths, Magnitude 7.5 or greater, Modified Mercalli Intensity X or greater, or the earthquake generated a tsunami.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

So it's not showing all recorded earthquakes. Only certain earthquakes. Sort of puts it in the same boat as the Google list, it tells us about "significant" earthquakes but not the actual number of earthquakes.

I don't find it surprising that more earthquakes would fall into the "significant" bucket as population, development, science, and communication increase. (Didn't that come up earlier in this thread?)

[edit on 2/28/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

So it's not showing all recorded earthquakes. Only certain earthquakes. Sort of puts it in the same boat as the Google list, it tells us about "significant" earthquakes but not the actual number of earthquakes.

Starting in January 2009, the USGS National Earthquake Information Center no longer locates earthquakes smaller than magnitude 4.5 outside the United States, unless we receive specific information that the earthquake was felt or caused damage

USGS Earthquake Facts and Statistics

So the USGS no longer shows all worldwide earthquakes. only certain earthquakes?

[edit on 28-2-2010 by dusty1]