Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are there really more earthquakes these days?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 09:46 AM
Original message
Are there really more earthquakes these days?
Edited on Tue Jun-21-11 09:47 AM by MineralMan
Let's have a look:

Here's a nifty table from the USGS www.usgs.gov



Not really, apparently. So much for that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. Are people saying there are more?
The only difference is there happened to be a very densely populated spot where a big one happened

Wasn't there a huge Earthquake a few years back, but on the seafloor?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 09:54 AM
Original message
Sure. I've read "it sure seems like there are more earthquakes"
dozens of times here on DU. In fact, I seem to read it in every earthquake thread.

There are earthquakes occurring all the time. Only a few are memorable enough to become part of everyone's knowledge. Most go unnoticed and unremembered. That's why each new one seems like it's really, really unusual.

Having lived in California, I know that earthquakes are common. This USGS table just provides the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Oh yeah. There are.
Some will be long presently, I am sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. Don't you know that earthquakes are caused by global warming???!!!!!????
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Oh, yeah...right. I forgot about that.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. And don't forget about the Pentagon's Earthquake Machines.
:rofl: :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. actually, we don't know if they do or do not...
We know that when the snow melts off mountains, there is small rise in elevation of the surrounding upper crust. It's not out of the question for changes in the weight of ice at the caps will cause the crust around it to react. We just don't know how much it will react.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Exactly. Could reduce strain on a fault, just as subjectivly as it could increase it.
Additional rainfall can lubricate a fault. A drought could have the opposite effect.

Correlation/causation is a bitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. So much for what?
First, it is silly to discern geological trends based on a mere decade.

Second, if you were silly enough to do so, the chart would support the contention that there has been an overall upward trend in the number of earthquakes over the past ten years (excluding the partial current year, of course).

BTW, what does the red asterisk in 09 and 10 mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The asterisks mean that you should look below the
Edited on Tue Jun-21-11 10:10 AM by MineralMan
table and read the footnote there. At least, that's what asterisks usually mean in tables like this one.

As for your other question, you can find earthquake average counts, by magnitude, since 1900, here:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. You mean the line that explains the lower numbers by them NOT COUNTING
earthquakes?

And averages do not reflect trends, particularly if those 'averages' are drawn from incomplete data, as the link itself admits to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yes. They quit recording most small earthquakes in 2009.
That's why they put that note there. Full disclosure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. Irish Weather article says yes...
2011 is on target to record the largest number of earthquakes in a single year for at least 12 years.

Research by Irish Weather Online, using data from the US Geological Survey (USGS), has found that earthquake activity (5.0-9.9 magnitude) from 01 January to 19 June 2011 is already exceeding the total annual seismic activity for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003. 2011’s total number of recorded earthquakes is also expected to exceed the most seismically active year of the past 12 years, 2007.

A total of 1,445 earthquakes, ranging in magnitude from 5.0 to 9.9, have been recorded in the year up to 19 June. The total number of earthquakes recorded globally for the entire of 2007 was 2,270.

http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/earthquakesvolcanos/number-of-recorded-earthquakes-rises-sharply/20688.html


However, it's very important to note that the earth has cycles it goes through, and that includes increases and decreases in seismic activity. We are entering an active phase, but there are no indications that it will be a hyper-active phase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC