California Rattled With Quakes
reasa
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Perfectly normal or something new?</div> <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8247661/?GT1=6657' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8247661/?GT1=6657</a>
<img src='http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/NEWS/050617/CA_quakes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Over the past few days California has been racked with earthquakes in what experts appear to be calling perfectly normal for an active zone.
But if you keep watch over this kind of stuff its rather noticeable that the number of "noticeable" seismic activity has been on the increase.
In 1997 there were only 3 notable quakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1997/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1997/</a>
1998 saw 10 notable quakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1998/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1998/</a>
In 1999 there were 13 notable quakes: <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1999/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1999/</a>
In 2000 there were 6 notable earthquakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2000/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2000/</a>
In 2001 the number increased to 7. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2001/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2001/</a>
By 2002 we jumped to 12 notable quakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2002/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2002/</a>
In 2003 it was 39 notable quakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2003/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2003/</a>
2004 also 39! <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2004/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2004/</a>
<a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/sig_2005.html' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/sig_2005.html</a> At this rate, our annual "run rate" will top 115 for 2005.
Now if you look at the graphs on <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html</a> you will find that the number of earthquakes worldwide is on an increase. These numbers do indicate a slight increase every year.
Number of earthquakes per years..
1990 - 16590
1991 - 16484
1992 - 19524
1993 - 21476
1994 - 19371
1995 - 21001
1996 - 19938
1997 - 19872
1998 - 21688
1999 - 20832
2000 - 22256
2001 - 23534
2002 - 27454
2003 - 31419
2004 - 31199
The data is certainly there the question is what if anything do we do about it?
<img src='http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/NEWS/050617/CA_quakes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Over the past few days California has been racked with earthquakes in what experts appear to be calling perfectly normal for an active zone.
But if you keep watch over this kind of stuff its rather noticeable that the number of "noticeable" seismic activity has been on the increase.
In 1997 there were only 3 notable quakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1997/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1997/</a>
1998 saw 10 notable quakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1998/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1998/</a>
In 1999 there were 13 notable quakes: <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1999/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/1999/</a>
In 2000 there were 6 notable earthquakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2000/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2000/</a>
In 2001 the number increased to 7. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2001/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2001/</a>
By 2002 we jumped to 12 notable quakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2002/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2002/</a>
In 2003 it was 39 notable quakes. <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2003/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2003/</a>
2004 also 39! <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2004/' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2004/</a>
<a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/sig_2005.html' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/sig_2005.html</a> At this rate, our annual "run rate" will top 115 for 2005.
Now if you look at the graphs on <a href='http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html' target='_blank'>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html</a> you will find that the number of earthquakes worldwide is on an increase. These numbers do indicate a slight increase every year.
Number of earthquakes per years..
1990 - 16590
1991 - 16484
1992 - 19524
1993 - 21476
1994 - 19371
1995 - 21001
1996 - 19938
1997 - 19872
1998 - 21688
1999 - 20832
2000 - 22256
2001 - 23534
2002 - 27454
2003 - 31419
2004 - 31199
The data is certainly there the question is what if anything do we do about it?
Comments
You know what some people fail to remember on a day to day basis is that we live on a rock, a rock floating through space.
This isn't some Armageddon thread, this is a discussion about the <i>fact</i> that seismic activity has been steadily increasing over the years.
I don't believe in an "Armageddon" but I do believe that our rock isn't always going to be so stable.
Has this increase been noted or documented by other sources? The data looks pretty clear, but it seems like something like this would be under hot debate by seismologists. Just about the only thing I would have to contribute would be random speculations that would be quickly put to rest by someone who actually knew what they were talking about.
<span style='color:red'>I found one for you ~Merk</span> - <a href='http://www.rain.org/~jkenner/media/aenima-arizonabay.gif' target='_blank'>http://www.rain.org/~jkenner/media/aenima-arizonabay.gif</a>
You know what some people fail to remember on a day to day basis is that we live on a rock, a rock floating through space.
This isn't some Armageddon thread, this is a discussion about the <i>fact</i> that seismic activity has been steadily increasing over the years.
I don't believe in an "Armageddon" but I do believe that our rock isn't always going to be so stable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, think of this
Every day, our athmosphere is being ripped at by the sun, held in place only by our powerful electromagnetic field generated deep in the outer core.
Now, think of this:
That EM Field is quickly failing. It's come to pass the time at which Earths EM field "flips", which is PRECEDED by a faulter or failure in siad field. Without this, parts of the atmosphere (eg, ozone) weaken and can even be broken thru by the suns radiation, eg, Solar Wind.
Extra Radiation = more heat
What this has to do with the earthquakes? WHO KNOWS! It could be tied in thru some geothermal-astrochemical reaction with the suns UV A/B/C rays.
Well I'm sure there are lots of other governments and private institutions that monitor earthquakes on a more localized scale.
As far as credibility and proof of documentation if you can't trust the US Geological Survey who can you trust?
Of course they will be the last to alarm anyone even if the data requires us to be alarmed. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
rofflewaffle
The earth is always varying, and it just so happens these last years saw a bit more action. On geologic terms, nothing visible is happening. There's a couple possible reasons we're experiencing more earthquakes:
-more precise and more numerous instruments.
-Slightly Increased activity.
It's not impossible we're going towards a true augmentation of earthquakes and it'll be very common, but it's not going to change tomorrow morning. It's not much to be worried about, I'd rather worry about global warming, and that's already probably looking ahead (and the ecologists know we need to do more of that)
It's like blinking. You're not closing your eyes, you're just blinking for an instant.
What I would like to know is if it's possible for mankind to affect the earth's geology? Ie. nuke tests have sent huge shockwaves throughout the planet. I think there was even one that went around the earth SEVEN times before stopping being detected by instruments.
Knowing Man can wipe out most life off of the planet, do we have the power to affect the Earth's inner activity? We're already messing out with its frail outer activity, I'm sure we can eventually do something that can eventually (butterfly effect) lead to a huge change in the (distant?) future.
Yeah... poor island just... vanished... vaporized...
*shudders*
eh not really...
I felt nothing in northern california, and my grandparents literally live within a decent golf drive of the san andreas fault
it has been overdue in slipping for quite some time, but I'm not concerened over the latest quakes.
Merk thanks for regulating on the non serious discussion
That was me : )
And you're more than welcome.
Screw it. The news is just bored now that Michael Jackson was proven innocent.
Nothing we can do though. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
My view is that we're all born to die and so was Earth. The clock is running down. Earth is dying, basically. Though I'm sure that technology has advanced and therefore renders these numbers questionable at best.
I still think we're seeing an increase in earthquake activity.
~ DarkATi
Nothing we can do though. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Attempting to extrapolate a geologic trend using only 14 years of data isn't going to be as helpful as looking at several thousand years of information--the fact that we don't have seismograph records going back that far doesn't mean that it's time to take a short view of a long process <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
If the next 15 years of data all fall somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 quakes per year, the data here won't mean much as a trend line. It's quite possible that California is in for a rougher ride than normal over the next few years, but there is also a lack of data to suggest that the early 90s didn't have unusually low quake numbers. Over the last five hundred or thousand years, 25,000 or 30,000 quakes per year could have been normal activity and we'd never know. It's certainly not time to worry about seeing 60,000 per year in 2020 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
My view is that we're all born to die and so was Earth. The clock is running down. Earth is dying, basically. Though I'm sure that technology has advanced and therefore renders these numbers questionable at best.
I still think we're seeing an increase in earthquake activity.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The earth isn't dying in 14 years. And if it was, sismic actvity would drop, not rise.
My view is that we're all born to die and so was Earth. The clock is running down. Earth is dying, basically. Though I'm sure that technology has advanced and therefore renders these numbers questionable at best.
I still think we're seeing an increase in earthquake activity.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The earth isn't dying in 14 years. And if it was, sismic actvity would drop, not rise. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, not in my theory of what a dying earth would look like. I imagine the Earth tearing itself apart. Totally opinionated, just my 2 tiny cents, now, back on topic:
Well has someone thought to use the same equipment for a 10 - 20 - 30 year test of siesmic activity? That would be a good way to get an accurate account, right?
EDIT: Furthermore, on my later point, to say that the Earth isn't dying in 14 years, is to say that you haven't died a little bit in the last nanosecond. Because, you have. Cells die and organs wear every moment of your life.
~ DarkATi
Ok... so there is this fault line right? and this... thisss.... thissssssss.... Science thats it... this science tells us this fault line makes earthquakes right? So what do people do? They build on top of it. When (notice the when not if) earthquakes occur, its devestating if they are large. People die... buildings crumble.
Am i the only one that think these people shouldn't get any aid beyond search&rescue/food&water whatsoever? The fact that earthquake insurance exists there bewilders me.
Its like building house when the tide goes out... and when it comes in acting all surprised. "Duuuurrrrrr teh water... it come and taked meh house away along with all my puppies!" No S*#T? really???
And yes, this is a serious question since millions of dollars of damage has been caused in the past... with the potential to reach billions.
I've heard that if you drive 15 miles or more to play the California state lottery, your odds are higher of dying in a car wreck on the way there than of winning the lottery.
Plus, I'm positive that there are more damage caused by electrical fires than earthquakes in California. (including more deaths) Should we stop using electricity?
I'd say every part is susceptible to natural disasters. Some are moreso then others. There is a place between total wrecklessness and being anal about ones safety. Find it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Do you drive a car? If yes, don't rag on people living in earthquake territory being unsafe.
I've heard that if you drive 15 miles or more to play the California state lottery, your odds are higher of dying in a car wreck on the way there than of winning the lottery.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly i try to as little as possible. I even wish i could function in society without one... but mass transit in america isn't as big compared to other countries. This is because there is a much larger landmass to cover. So in my area... you either pay for a bus ticket or you drive if you work out of town. Cars are a large part of why americans are so overwieght... if everyone could walk to wherever they needed to work/eat/shop at there wouldn't be that big of a problem.
Back to the car driving comparison... If there was a large stretch of highway on which random thugs are known to hijack, kill, and destroy property people would avoid it no?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Plus, I'm positive that there are more damage caused by electrical fires than earthquakes in California. (including more deaths) Should we stop using electricity?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People use that same reasoning when it comes to firearm regulation... so in our current political machine you could probubly say yes. Like firearms though... upping safety procedures would probubly eliminate all but a few cases of these fires. these house/building/forest fires are probubly caused by old/outdated/faulty/incorrectly used wiring.