EarthQauke IncrEaASe over last 10 years? I Wanna know the Data.

Hey all, I have been closely monitoring earthquake activity, seismic activity, and solar activity closely for the last 6 months and I HAVE noticed a direct correlation to the KP index and solar wind speed affecting seismic activity. It isn't very telling but everything spikes around the same time period. I was wondering if there was anyone out there that has noticed the same? And have there really been a large increase in the number of earthquakes over the last 10 years. Just looking for help in the quest of knowledge.
~peace

The ultimate cause HAS to be gravitic in nature......
IMHO thats the basic cause of the whole thing.
Alter the gravity picture from the norm, and there will be just the kind of thing we see now...increasing to a creshendo, then tapering off again slowly as it built up.
Here come de judge!

I'd say yes, it increased.

Here's a graph by USGS:
USGS Worldwide Deadly & Destructive Earthquakes between Magnitudes 6 and 8

Originally posted by Gab1159
I'd say yes, it increased.

Here's a graph by USGS:
USGS Worldwide Deadly & Destructive Earthquakes between Magnitudes 6 and 8

I'd say no, it hasnt increased.
That graph you refer to is poor data.
It comes from a list of "SELECTED" earthquakes of "HISTORICAL INTEREST".
One imagines that whoever put the selected list together at the USGS would have earthquakes in the last few years of being more interest to the public than a similar one of the 1840's.
Thus, a larger number of more recent ones.

For better data, not just handpicked selected data see here...
Link

No increase.

Anyway, its rather hypocritical of conspiracy theorists to use incomplete USGS data from the USGS website to prove a claim, when other USGS pages on that same website say NO INCREASE.
Link

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Gab1159
I'd say yes, it increased.

Here's a graph by USGS:
USGS Worldwide Deadly & Destructive Earthquakes between Magnitudes 6 and 8

I'd say no, it hasnt increased.
That graph you refer to is poor data.
It comes from a list of "SELECTED" earthquakes of "HISTORICAL INTEREST".
One imagines that whoever put the selected list together at the USGS would have earthquakes in the last few years of being more interest to the public than a similar one of the 1840's.
Thus, a larger number of more recent ones.

It's not if an earthquake is of public interest, but of historical interest. What makes you assume an older quake doesn't have as much historical interest as a recent one?

Selection or not, the data is still overwhelming!

Maybe these charts will please you more:






EDIT: Well, alpha1, your link shows an increase to me...

Originally posted by alfa1
For better data, not just handpicked selected data see here...
Link

No increase.

Anyway, its rather hypocritical of conspiracy theorists to use incomplete USGS data from the USGS website to prove a claim, when other USGS pages on that same website say NO INCREASE.
Link

That data seems to point out an increase as well.

Go to the ATS earthquake forum "Quake watch 2010
Puterman did a very detailed analysis of the trends over the last years.
It is at the end of the thread

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Go to the ATS earthquake forum "Quake watch 2010
Puterman did a very detailed analysis of the trends over the last years.
It is at the end of the thread

edit on 11-4-2011 by Lil Drummerboy because: (no reason given)

Thank you, I will

Originally posted by Gab1159
Maybe these charts will please you more:

Can you provide a better link to the source of the data, please.
The first one is a small image on a blog (BSM Research) and I cant find where the data is originally sourced, and the second one is also an image from a website (michaelmandeville.com) that I cant find where the data is originally sourced from.

P.S. The second image, with mag 2.5... well its just that magnitude 2.5 is rather small. Barely perceptible in fact, and it would rather be the case that simply an increase in the number of soismometers around the world in the last few decades would account for all of the detections of tiny local events.
Can you provide a source that has taken this into account, please.

Originally posted by stirling
The ultimate cause HAS to be gravitic in nature......
IMHO thats the basic cause of the whole thing.
Alter the gravity picture from the norm, and there will be just the kind of thing we see now...increasing to a creshendo, then tapering off again slowly as it built up.
Here come de judge!

That is a very interesting theory, Has anyone researched that?

Originally posted by princeguy

Originally posted by stirling
Alter the gravity picture from the norm...

That is a very interesting theory, Has anyone researched that?

If anyone was going to notice "altering gravity picture from the norm" it would be the people trying to detect gravitational waves.
Link

Very sensitive detectors set up to measure tiny variations from the norm.

So far they have detected no variation from the norm. At all.

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Go to the ATS earthquake forum "Quake watch 2010
Puterman did a very detailed analysis of the trends over the last years.

Ok, I took a look.
You are misguided.

1. The analysis done at the end of that thread (second last page) is for only the earthquakes in the Gulf area alone.

2. Puterman, the man you cite, does however have a much larger analysis of earthquake data at this thread....
Link to analysis
...where he finds nothing unusual about 2010 and ends up cncluding the following...
Years 2000 to 2009 only
In conclusion therefore, in my opinion as a non-scientist, I believe that 2010 in terms of earthquakes was not a particularly outstanding year.

Its quite sad when the one poerson who you thought would back you up, turns out to completely undermine your own argument.

reply to post by alfa1

I'd say no, it hasnt increased.
That graph you refer to is poor data.
It comes from a list of "SELECTED" earthquakes of "HISTORICAL INTEREST".
One imagines that whoever put the selected list together at the USGS would have earthquakes in the last few years of being more interest to the public than a similar one of the 1840's.
Thus, a larger number of more recent ones.

You are absolutely correct, the data is SELECTED and does not tell the whole story, unfortunately it is pounced upon by many as demonstrating an increase.

I am in the middle of a large survey going back to 1930 for earthquakes of Magnitude 6.5 and over and whilst I have some preliminary results I will be a while to get a report out on this.

This is just an illustration, however it is the correct figures and does show the real picture.



In a nutshell the linear trend of energy released is level over the period 1930 to 2010 (note this does not include 2011 yet) and the linear trend of counts (number of quakes) is up very slightly.

The polynomial (4) of the counts is being skewed by the 1930 figure. I am not sure if this is because there were fewer earthquakes or because the catalogue is not complete. There are a few loose ends I need to tie up before I can create a report.

The energy release figure is dominated by the 1960 Valparaiso quake in Chile. On a side note I see that there is a pattern here of around 55 years so the 2010 8.8 falls into that quite nicely 1904,1960,2010 (close enough) for the big ones.

The increase in counts over the 80 is minimal and the energy is not out of the ordinary but I have to be honest and say that we will need to see 2011 out of the way before the final pattern can be established. I believe however that the rest of 2011 will be relatively quiet and if things follow the trends 2012 will be even quieter than 'normal'

I will let you know when the report is done.

BTW I believe Lil Drummerboy was actually not saying that my report would show an increase, just that it was there and available. That was how I read it anyway.

reply to post by Gab1159


Could you please provide the links for those graphs.

The first I believe to be based on the same partial data and the second being based on magnitude 2.5 upwards in completely irrelevant as the vast increase in seismological stations over the past decades has lead to enormous increases in detection rates of smaller quakes.

Basically Mag 7+ is good from 1900, mag 6.5+ is good from 1930, Mag 5.5+ is good from 1964.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2959d715561.png[/atsimg]

Source: USGS Centennial.pdf penultimate paragraph of page 6 of the PDF.

Thank you for the excellent information Puterman, What I am wondering tho is take yesterday for example, we had 60+ quakes, mostly in japan, is this normal activity for "aftershocks"? I have not followed the larger 8+ quakes of the past. And with this correlation of the sun activity and quakes i would say that our quake activity is going to raise if the sun does what everyone is saying its going to do. whats your opinion?