It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by ArieZ
you've made a neat observation based on what seems like pretty good research.
i wonder though...was the increase in seismicity the result of actual increased tectonic activity OR was it the result of more sensitive measurement techniques?
What do you think based on your research?
Originally posted by Tasty Canadian
I have a great little add-on for Firefox, called e-quake. It puts the lastest earthquake in the right corner of every current page that you're on. I have mine set to (((shake))) whenever there's a quake of magnitude 5 or more, but you can set that any way you like. Right now it reads M 3.6 Central Alaska.edit on 16-2-2011 by Tasty Canadian because: grrrrrrr
As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant
Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
reply to post by ArieZ
Just curious, did you intentionally ignore this statement in the link you provided?
As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant
They then provide a link to this page further explaining your questions. Did you read it or immediately dismiss it as the USGS covering something up? Not trying to offend you or anything but it seems you're intentionally trying to find a conspiricay while ignoring the facts provided.
I believe the earthquakes won't get reported in the figures you are using unless they are located, not just just detected. To locate the quakes, they need to be picked up by multiple seismometers, not just one. Therefore, if you have more seismometers around the world with more sensitive sensing capabilites, you would expect an increase in quakes located, especially small ones. The majority of the increase in the quakes located have been in the lower magnitude ranges, which is exactly as you'd expect.
If we saw a distinct drop in minor seismic activity, I would be more worried. Small quakes are common and can help relieve pressure on fault lines, so it's really not something you'd need to cover up. The chance of a major earthquake is always present, but it doesn't mean there is some conspiracy going on. Unless there is something I am missing here?
It's great to ask questions, but you need to be willing to accept the answers, even if they're boring ones
Originally posted by ArieZ
Ok well I kinda covered that a lil bit..what I was asking does anybody else think its a lil strange that they stopped reporting earthquakes less than 4.5 during largest seismic activity known.. As far as I know those are major precursors to events. Take the Arkansas earthquake swarm look at this link plz it posts hunreds of earthquakes in Arkansas in the last six months folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu...
so if thats going on in say Iceland or something like that they don't feel the need to tell us anymore which i find strange.