Super Moon and Japan/NZ

Originally posted by warmnfuzzie
You don't actually need the moon to understand that we are living in a dangerous time where earthquake energy levels have greatly increased since around 2004. Why is ignorance the chosen path when place after place has been destroyed by an unstable earth and hundreds of thousands are dead.

Hello again, good to see you back.

Originally posted by warmnfuzzie
Why is ignorance the chosen path when place after place has been destroyed by an unstable earth and hundreds of thousands are dead.

In my opinion it is wisdom, not ignorance, to prefer scientifically obtained and compiled statistics, over news reports - especially when dealing with a time period in which news reporting has changed dramatically, and dealing with something thats effect changes with population (and population is known to be increasing).

If you can show me actual stats showing this dramatic increase in earthquake energy, then I will be interested. If you merely point to news reports then I take it you have nothing more than guesswork or heresay to back you up.

Largest Earthquakes in the World Since 1900

1. Chile 1960 05 22 9.5 -38.29 -73.05 Kanamori, 1977
2. Prince William Sound, Alaska 1964 03 28 9.2 61.02 -147.65 Kanamori, 1977
3. Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004 12 26 9.1 3.30 95.78 Park et al., 2005
4. Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan 2011 03 11 9.0 38.322 142.369 PDE
5. Kamchatka 1952 11 04 9.0 52.76 160.06 Kanamori, 1977
6. Offshore Maule, Chile 2010 02 27 8.8 -35.846 -72.719 PDE
7. Off the Coast of Ecuador 1906 01 31 8.8 1.0 -81.5 Kanamori, 1977
8. Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 02 04 8.7 51.21 178.50 Kanamori, 1977
9. Northern Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 03 28 8.6 2.08 97.01 PDE
10. Assam - Tibet 1950 08 15 8.6 28.5 96.5 Kanamori, 1977
11. Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1957 03 09 8.6 51.56 -175.39 Johnson et al., 1994
12. Southern Sumatra, Indonesia 2007 09 12 8.5 -4.438 101.367 PDE
13. Banda Sea, Indonesia 1938 02 01 8.5 -5.05 131.62 Okal and Reymond, 2003
14. Kamchatka 1923 02 03 8.5 54.0 161.0 Kanamori, 1988
15. Chile-Argentina Border 1922 11 11 8.5 -28.55 -70.50 Kanamori, 1977
16. Kuril Islands 1963 10 13 8.5 44.9 149.6 Kanamori, 1977

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php

Roughly 1/3rd of these earthquakes have occured in less then 1/10th of the time. More accurately ... 31% in 6.3% of time. This giving large earthquakes and their aftershocks contribute the greater amount of earthquake energy released. It takes 39 years of no earthquakes before 2004 before the next largest earthquake where the short period before again experiences the same outbreak of similar earthquakes... yet at that time societies weren't as advanced and spread out more as they are today and they hit less populated areas. In a short space of time we are at the height of earthquakes since 1900... when concerned with the greatest earthquakes.

News reports in Christchurch are they are mapping out the fault lines with a machine that shows all the faults so they can plan future building codes on the fault line they didn't even know existed.

Originally posted by warmnfuzzie
Roughly 1/3rd of these earthquakes have occured in less then 1/10th of the time. More accurately ... 31% in 6.3% of time.

It is not statistically significant considering the small sample size.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not statistically significant considering the small sample size.

Well there are millions of "earthquakes" every year yes, but how many of them would considered "significant" in terms of threat?

1 significant aftershock in Japan and half the earthquakes in the top10 of all recorded history will have happened in the last 7 years. That would be significant and it is significant. What isn't significant is the earthquake data that we have as it only covers around 100 years. The sample is too small to think we know what is normal or a stable earth when comparing 100 years to billions of years.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
1 significant aftershock in Japan and half the earthquakes in the top10 of all recorded history will have happened in the last 7 years.

Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Largest_earthquakes_by_magnitude

Originally posted by Palynka
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Largest_earthquakes_by_magnitude

Listed the earthquake with moment magnitude scale or Richter magnitude scale 8.5 and above. This list may be biased towards recent years due to the development and widespread deployment of seismometers. Records detailed enough to make magnitude estimates were not generally available before 1900.

I guess that depends on what you decide as acceptable scientific data. Do you have a credible link that isn't a wikipedia page??

Even with the list you gave that has a number of "estimates" 3/10 instead of 4/10 over 1000+ years compared to the last 7 years.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical_mag.php

3rd, 4th, 8th, 13th & 16th all within the last 7 years from data 300+ years.

Earthquakes happen in runs so if you are getting large earthquakes the chances are that more large earthquakes will continue to happen soon./

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-were-the-10-largest-earthquakes.htm

http://theeconomist.tumblr.com/post/3788408797/daily-chart-the-worlds-largest-earthquakes-the

http://theamazingpage.com/the-10-largest-earthquakes-ever-recorded/

http://atop10.net/misc/top-10-biggest-earthquakes-in-the-world.html

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/worlds-biggest-earthquakes-110412-1371/7

It seems a lot of people only accept data from 1900 onwards.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
Listed the earthquake with moment magnitude scale or Richter magnitude scale 8.5 and above. This list may be biased towards recent years due to the development and widespread deployment of seismometers. Records detailed enough to make magnitude estimates were not generally available before 1900.

I guess that depends on what you decide as acceptable scie ...[text shortened]... s a number of "estimates" 3/10 instead of 4/10 over 1000+ years compared to the last 7 years.

You can't be serious about saying the frequency is higher this century than 1000 years ago. There were vast areas of the world where no record would be found of such earthquakes and for most of the ones we have are just guesstimates.

If you pick the top 10 of non guesstimates, only 3 out of 10 happened in the last ten years, 3 happened in the 60s, 3 in the 50s and one in the (19)00s. The last 10 years don't seem that special from this perspective.

Wiki provides references.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical_mag.php

3rd, 4th, 8th, 13th & 16th all within the last 7 years from data 300+ years.

Earthquakes happen in runs so if you are getting large earthquakes the chances are that more large earthquakes will continue to happen soon./

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-were-the-10-largest-earthquakes.htm
...[text shortened]... iggest-earthquakes-110412-1371/7

It seems a lot of people only accept data from 1900 onwards.

You complain about wiki but post random webpages like theamazingpage.com, atop10.net or ouramazingplanet.com. Mmm... Consistent much?

From your first link the 60s still look harsher. 1st, 2nd, 10th, 17th. Look at data from last century only and you have 1st, 2nd, 8th in the top 10.

Originally posted by Palynka
You complain about wiki but post random webpages like theamazingpage.com, atop10.net or ouramazingplanet.com. Mmm... Consistent much?

From your first link the 60s still look harsher. 1st, 2nd, 10th, 17th. Look at data from last century only and you have 1st, 2nd, 8th in the top 10.

Yes the 60's were also a time of concern. I'm not saying we are at the end of the world but a time to show concern. As I said earthquakes happen in runs so you have the choice of being an ignorant while hundreds of thousands die or show some concern for the real threat that is clearly evident.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
Yes the 60's were also a time of concern. I'm not saying we are at the end of the world but a time to show concern. As I said earthquakes happen in runs so you have the choice of being an ignorant while hundreds of thousands die or show some concern for the real threat that is clearly evident.

You also have the choice of engaging politely in conversation or surreptitiously calling me an ignorant. All while you agree with me on the data, which means that your claim that "half the earthquakes in the top10 of all recorded history will have happened in the last 7 years" is proven wrong.

How much concern do I need to show so that I'm not an ignorant?

Originally posted by Palynka
You can't be serious about saying the frequency is higher this century than 1000 years ago. There were vast areas of the world where no record would be found of such earthquakes and for most of the ones we have are just guesstimates.

If you pick the top 10 of non guesstimates, only 3 out of 10 happened in the last ten years, 3 happened in the 60s, 3 in th ...[text shortened]... The last 10 years don't seem that special from this perspective.

Wiki provides references.

Now you are making things up that I never said. All the earthquakes before 1900 are estimates because they didn't have the technology to acurately predict what size magnitude an earthquake is therefore is not acceptable as scientific data.