Why has the EQ count gone mental on USGS?

reply to post by Benji1999


Unfortunately with quakes you can't use projected figures as it's just impossible to predict even the experts who have spent decades researching the field aren't able to say what's going to happen. What you have to note though alot of the 5+ mag quakes will be aftershocks, the 8.8 in chile alone caused alot of 5+ mag aftershocks as most high mag quakes do so while it's good you put effort in trying to estimate future quakes it holds no water as quakes are mostly random and cannot be predicted unfortunately for the folks who live in geologically active regions

This is why I love this site.

We have the members that rely soley on reported 'facts', using charts and reliable, recorded numbers to come to conclusions. I appreciate this info and point of view to keep me grounded. It is the kind of information gathering that I do not have the time or patience to do for myself. Thank you.

Then we have the members that reach beyond those stats and numbers and try to, I think, 'take in the bigger picture'. By applying this common sense, theory based intellect, we get the what ifs that I just love to roll around in my brain.

I end up somewhere in-between. Relying on the factst to fall back on while contemplating all the other possibilities. I have been watching the USGS and other EQ sites for over a decade now. I have most definately seen an upwards trend in EQ activity, but this is strictly my unscientific observation....so I continue to watch and read and speculate and learn.

I think that no matter what, we are in an era of change and an explosion of knowledge and I find it all very.....fascinating.

reply to post by JakiusFogg


The magma is heating up due to global warming which causes expantion of the crust, hence earthquakes. simple
Our governments have been chem-trailing us for over 14 years here in n-wisconsin. I you notice the government planes fly early morning, after a few passes these chem-trails which go from horizon to horizon soon spread out and haze the whole sky by noon most days. Barrium for cloud seeding and aluminum reflecter powder for up high--look up people and you will figure it out. THE EARTH WILL RUMBLE FROM NOW TILL THE END

reply to post by Discotech


I agree with you that for something as variable and unpredictable as earthquakes, a projected figure is going to be far from accurate.
However, the main reason I showed the projected figure was not to show what the year's total was ''likely'' to be, but to indicate that we have seen a larger than usual number of earthquakes of that size in the first three and a half months of the year .
Looking back on it, it would have served just as well for me to have put a daily average total for each year to demonstrate my point.

Also, a projected figure is useful, because it can be tweaked on a daily basis ( yesterday's projection was 2716, whereas today it's 2705 ), and the more of the year that passes, the more accurate the projection will be. For example, today's projection figures are based on 28.2% factual and 71.8% hypothetical figures - and as you say that is not necessarily going to hold much accuracy to the year end total; eventually the percentage that's based on factual earthquakes will provide the majority of the predicted total.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Benji1999]

reply to post by Benji1999


Just curious but have you used total year figures for the previous years ?

If you're basing a full years figure on 1/3 of the year compared to actual full year figures then your assessment is going to be skewed, for any statistical analysis you really need to use equal sets of figures throughout otherwise it would not be a fair comparison.

Now if you could gather 1st 1/3 figures for each previous year then we would be able to see a more realistic correlation and be able to judge more fairly on whether or not this year is out of the ordinary.

But if we use this years figures at 1/3 through the year and compare it to previous years quakes then it appears we currently have 1/3 the quakes of the normal average.

However if you look at last years figures for total quakes it's quite down on previous years figure which would suggest a decrease in quakes if we go off your theory.

Ultimately though it's impossible to make predictions, we can predict how many quakes we will have each year based on previous as they are pretty similar but we can't predict when during the year they will occur.

Originally posted by itsawild1
reply to post by JakiusFogg

 

The magma is heating up due to global warming which causes expantion of the crust, hence earthquakes. simple
Our governments have been chem-trailing us for over 14 years here in n-wisconsin. I you notice the government planes fly early morning, after a few passes these chem-trails which go from horizon to horizon soon spread out and haze the whole sky by noon most days. Barrium for cloud seeding and aluminum reflecter powder for up high--look up people and you will figure it out. THE EARTH WILL RUMBLE FROM NOW TILL THE END

Ummmm....the magma is heating up because of global warming? Wow, that's a BIG stretch.

Do you really think that we humans are that significant? We aren't. We are only ants scurrying around on the surface and the total raw power of this planet is something we can't even conceive.

"global warming" is a joke, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the magma heating up and causing the surface to shift. It's called NATURE and it has it's own cycle and it's own agenda and we are only here for the ride....

btw...

Reply from U2U

Subject: Re: E.Q. question?
from: PuterMan
sent: 4/13/2010 at 17:55


I received a reply today.

>>>"No magnitude" means that we did locate an earthquake but were unable to assign a magnitude value to it.

The value for "no magnitude" earthquakes is probably decreasing because, since 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. This eliminates many small earthquakes
for which a magnitude cannot be determined.

Madeleine Zirbes
USGS NEIC

reply to post by Discotech


Sadly I have not got any monthly figures for earthquakes by previous years, as it would have made an interesting comparison.
I realise it is not going to be too accurate, as you say, because a dataset should be comparing like-for-like statistics.
As I say, it is only really a rudimentary projected figure to show what the year end total would be if this year's figures were to continue at a similar rate for the rest of the year.
I'm sure as the months go by we'll be getting a clearer picture of where this year stands in comparison with others over the last decade.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by Benji1999]