tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post3137253270166559678..comments2024-03-29T11:22:18.208+00:00Comments on Mabinogogiblog: Japan Earthquake: part of an increasing trend?DocRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-90813290329774883442012-09-13T19:45:32.204+01:002012-09-13T19:45:32.204+01:00Hank lives here, everybody: http://www.cantrip.org...Hank lives here, everybody: http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html<br /><br />DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-8408477951367404162012-09-13T19:44:06.176+01:002012-09-13T19:44:06.176+01:00Thanks Hank and thanks for the spork link.
I'...Thanks Hank and thanks for the spork link.<br /><br />I'll have a look at the link, but I suspect it is a terminal situation.<br /><br />I just want to make it clear to all that I'm not trying to "prove" anything here. Just fiddling around.<br /><br />Not trying to start a geological contrarian movement. Although, come to think of it, geologists do tend to lean towards climate scepticism. Based on an impression.<br /><br />Also geologists were v slow to wake up to Alfred Wegener's revolution.<br /><br />Anyway. DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-91949198435935630082012-09-13T17:05:20.445+01:002012-09-13T17:05:20.445+01:00p.s., can you link that "this century" l...p.s., can you link that "this century" line from the USGS? I can't find it and am wondering if it was quoted from something written before the turn of the century.<br /><br /> site:usgs.gov +earthquake +"this century" - did not match any documents. Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-45329945884152233362012-09-13T16:59:32.036+01:002012-09-13T16:59:32.036+01:00http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/rev-graham-and-th...http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/rev-graham-and-the-signs-of-armageddon/ also assesses the earthquake claim and says not.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-2665299414172511402011-03-17T10:24:17.964+00:002011-03-17T10:24:17.964+00:00Thanks Phil.
I've put your link into the main...Thanks Phil.<br /><br />I've put your link into the main post.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-79338450247967007612011-03-16T18:40:15.409+00:002011-03-16T18:40:15.409+00:00At first glance, your post seems incredible.
But ...At first glance, your post seems incredible.<br /><br />But look what New Scientist had to say today:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928043.000-the-megaquake-connection-are-huge-earthquakes-linked.html" rel="nofollow">The megaquake connection: Are huge earthquakes linked?</a><br /><br />Rest assured, you're not the only one asking these questions.<br /><br />If you want to go totally apocalyptic, have a read of Jeffrey Goodman's "The Earthquake Generation" and John White's "Pole Shift".Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05789761931551673481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-14795633073686606682011-03-16T16:43:24.407+00:002011-03-16T16:43:24.407+00:00Hi No 6
No, I still cannot see any validity in re...Hi No 6<br /><br />No, I still cannot see any validity in removing the 2 bits of data.<br /><br />I'm using the 1900-2010 timescale, which is as much as we can obtain, and that is problematic.<br /><br />Are you a seismologist? If so, do you know whether 8+ could be registered by early instruments? IN other words, could there have been earlier quakes that escaped detection?<br /><br />A priori, we should expect seismic effects from thermal expansion of plates and magma. After all, they factor in thermal expansion of water in sea level rise.<br /><br />You're very kind to agree with pretty much everything else.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-46787087060893523892011-03-16T14:14:25.711+00:002011-03-16T14:14:25.711+00:00Surely you realise why you 'removing' the ...Surely you realise why you 'removing' the two earthquakes is 'important'? Think of what climate change deniers do with short sets of data...<br /><br />I feel that you're looking at this on the wrong timescale. You will have a very hard time finding a handful of geologists that see any merit at all in the theory, similar to finding climatologists who argue against AGW. <br /><br />I'm lumping this with your 9-11 conspiracy stuff. But look on the brightside, I pretty much agree with everything else you write!No. 6noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-41459217356955453722011-03-16T11:51:19.429+00:002011-03-16T11:51:19.429+00:00The Prof astronomy link is interesting. His plot o...The Prof astronomy link is interesting. His plot of total energy shows a clear trend 1900-2010. However, inclusion of small earthquakes makes it vulnerable to observation bias. <br /><br />There's even still a trend after he arbitrarily removed 2 bits of data.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-80471158895685270242011-03-16T11:32:27.199+00:002011-03-16T11:32:27.199+00:00OK.
The Rockbandit link only looks at 1990-2010, ...OK.<br /><br />The Rockbandit link only looks at 1990-2010, and basically says that 2010 was average for the period.<br /><br />I'm looking at long term trends. What I do not know is how many earthquakes mag 8+ would have been missed by earlier instrumentation. That's the key q.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-68382835075619511532011-03-16T11:22:37.742+00:002011-03-16T11:22:37.742+00:00First response: Now why would you want to remove C...First response: Now why would you want to remove Chile 2010 and Indonesia 2004?DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-44782540424515667662011-03-16T11:19:54.211+00:002011-03-16T11:19:54.211+00:00This is odd. I have 2 email comments which have no...This is odd. I have 2 email comments which have not appeared here. So in I paste them:<br /><br />No 6. has left a new comment on your post "Japan Earthquake: part of an increasing trend?":<br /><br />Doc,<br /><br />There is no increasing trend of earthquakes. Seismic activity is reassuringly normal.<br /><br />The US Geological Survey archive of recorded earthquakes shows no change in the number of major earthquakes and no correlation between the number of strong earthquakes and global warming (using several measures).<br /><br />You can even sum the energy released by medium and large earthquakes since 1990 and although it initially seems that there's a slight trend, by removing the Chilean earthquake of 2010 and the Indonesian earthquake of 2004, there is no noticeable trend.<br /><br />So, the number and energy of earthquakes has been essentially constant over the past 20 years (and much longer!)<br /><br />There are plenty of geology sites/institutions well practised at debunking this stuff - this one is very good and accessible: http://geology.rockbandit.net/2010/03/01/has-there-been-an-increase-in-earthquake-activity/<br /><br />The USGS also has a page to answer this:<br />http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=110 <br /><br />---<br /><br /><br />sorry for the impersonal reply but I wrote a lengthy post that I lost, being a bit thick today. I did distil the stuff below into a more friendly format but hey ho.<br /><br />this covers it though:<br /><br />http://daveschumaker.net/have-there-really-been-more-earthquakes-than-average/<br /><br />"Statistically speaking, you would expect to find 95% of all results falling within two standard deviations of your average. Simply put, there is absolutely nothing strange happening."<br /><br />http://blog.professorastronomy.com/2010/04/earthquakes-volcanoes-global-warming.html<br />---<br /><br />RL: No 6, thanks. I will read and get back.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-67230848732922291992011-03-14T15:41:26.066+00:002011-03-14T15:41:26.066+00:00sorry for the impersonal reply but I wrote a lengt...sorry for the impersonal reply but I wrote a lengthy post that I lost, being a bit thick today. I did distil the stuff below into a more friendly format but hey ho.<br /><br />this covers it though:<br /><br />http://daveschumaker.net/have-there-really-been-more-earthquakes-than-average/<br /><br />"Statistically speaking, you would expect to find 95% of all results falling within two standard deviations of your average. Simply put, there is absolutely nothing strange happening."<br /><br />http://blog.professorastronomy.com/2010/04/earthquakes-volcanoes-global-warming.htmlNo. 6noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-62823500641927756822011-03-14T15:13:40.322+00:002011-03-14T15:13:40.322+00:00Doc,
There is no increasing trend of earthquakes....Doc,<br /><br />There is no increasing trend of earthquakes. Seismic activity is reassuringly normal. <br /><br />The US Geological Survey archive of recorded earthquakes shows no change in the number of major earthquakes and no correlation between the number of strong earthquakes and global warming (using several measures).<br /><br />You can even sum the energy released by medium and large earthquakes since 1990 and although it initially seems that there's a slight trend, by removing the Chilean earthquake of 2010 and the Indonesian earthquake of 2004, there is no noticeable trend. <br /><br />So, the number and energy of earthquakes has been essentially constant over the past 20 years (and much longer!)<br /><br />There are plenty of geology sites/institutions well practised at debunking this stuff - this one is very good and accessible: http://geology.rockbandit.net/2010/03/01/has-there-been-an-increase-in-earthquake-activity/<br /><br />The USGS also has a page to answer this:<br /> http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=110No 6.noreply@blogger.com