And, Yahoo news report about things that have the most "news value". Canada is close, so thereby it has more newvalue than India. Also, India are quite earthquake prone and experiences strong earthquakes from time to time

You are very right that I didn't pay ANY attention to the news, earthquakes, or natural disasters until my bestfriend told me about the 2012 program on the History Channel. And i agree with you that now I am looking for any and everything. :)

http://daveschumaker.net/have-there-really-been-more-earthquakes-than-average/

As long as you keep looking for things to frighten you, you will keep finding them. We see what we expect to see. Please, just stop poring over doomsday sites and looking for things to scare yourself with.

I think the earthquake in Haiti was considered to be a "strike-slip." Where two plates are running in two opposite directions, and tension builds up as they run into each other and trying to get past each other. And a big earthquake happens when the tension is broken.

The cascadia subduction earthquake is what it says. The Juan de Fuca plate is diving under the North American plate, making parts of the plate raise in elevation. (Vancouver Island) So when the earthquake hits, the west coast of the island "sinks" about a meter or two.

So in my previous post I mentioned that I would be worried if there weren't small earthquakes around that area. Because, back to the finger snapping, if you slowly move your fingers while snapping, it will encounter more friction (in this case more minor earthquakes). But if you were to go at it and press the two fingers tightly, it snaps, and makes a loud sound. Of course geologists have stated that the frequency or infrequency of smaller earthquakes doesn't make a larger earthquake likely or unlikely.

The above is my opinion, probably wrong, but makes sense to me. I could use some correction on this.

The great grand-daddy of faults, the San Andreas, has sections that move without producing much of anything as far as earthquakes. Then there are the worrisome sections, which are 'locked' and building up pressure. There are also sections that are sort of between these two extremes, and it is common to get a cluster of small earthquakes instead of a single larger one.

Of course, "small" is relative. I live just a few miles away from the mighty San Andreas, and anything under 5.0 is "small".

I think it is very smart of you to realize that the doomsayers play on fear, and will play off of just about anything to try and convince you that 2012 is "real".

There was a strong cluster in indonesia today.

Which isn't unusual for that area, as it is within the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Largest was 7.0. If the yearly VERAGE OF 7.0-7.9 IS 15, how many have we had so far?

Eight, right in line with expectations for this time of year.

Rickard (I'll need to get used to typing that now)

Haha, yeah the ch-variant of my name was already taken so this were the outcome of my total lack of imagination.

I don't absolutely know that better detection accounts for the apparent increases, so I'm in no position to claim that I'm "right," nor is there anything you need apologize for.

Even if it isn't hundred percent sure that that is the cause I can agree that that's the most likelly scenario. But I was woundering, what do you make of the link between global warming and earthquakes? According to some AGW-proponents global warming in general, and the polar ice melting in particular, could account for a slight increase (gradual) in earthquakes. Is this in any way possible?

That is/was my only point. There in all likelihood were some actual increases contributing to the numbers as well.

as we point out on our earthquakes page, we expect an average (some years higher, some years lower) of 17 earthquakes in the 7.0 to 7.9 range each year.

And yet again you choose to neglect what I am saying. Look at this graph, and then tell me that earthquakes haven't been increasing:

I haven't neglected anything. I have gone to great lengths to explain this to you, but apparently you're having trouble getting around your own desire for something to be true, when it simply isn't. Also, if you've been listening, I have told you in no uncertain terms that earthquakes are not "increasing," and that the very concept is dubious, because tectonic activity doesn't follow a discernible itinerary.

4.0 to 4.9 8008 7991 8541 8462 10888 13917 12838 12078 12291 6928 4171
3.0 to 3.9 4827 6266 7068 7624 7932 9191 9990 9889 11735 2898 1614

Richard, exactly where in that trend are you finding a "drastic increase?" Zero in on which section of that data constitutes a "drastic" change. Tell me which numbers are "drastic," and justify your use of that term.

And yes, the numbers are drastically lower the last two years. But you don't suppose that could have something to do with: "Starting in January 2009, the USGS National Earthquake Information Center no longer locates earthquakes smaller than magnitude 4.5 outside the United States, unless we receive specific information that the earthquake was felt or caused damage."? (from the very same USGS page)

Well, after linking that page dozens of times, I actually didn't remember that, but it makes sense. With such being the case, the mean is probably even steadier than it appears, which actually sustains my point, not yours.

Up til they stopped registrering m4,5 and lower there was quite an increase in minor earthquakes, which is apparent if you just look at the numbers in the fact sheet above.

No, there wasn't. I'm looking at the same numbers you are. Like I told you, I'm squinting really hard and trying to see it, but it ain't there. The only trends that are even somewhat notable as a gradual upswing are 3.0-3.9 and 4.0-4.9 (the numbers you printed above), and those still fluctuate both up and down, and none of the changes are even remotely what I would call "drastic." Again, you need to qualify that term.

Extending the data to include the previous decade makes the changes you're so closely focused on seem even less remarkable.

4.0 to 4.9 4437 4335 5128 4999 4518 8003 8756 7903 7303 6972
3.0 to 3.9 2517 2990 4692 4326 5041 5151 4923 4513 5945 5605

Factor in more monitoring stations and better equipment over time, and you have a mean that hasn't really changed all that much beyond our ability to detect. In another ten or twenty years, maybe the data will be better.

So, no, there haven't been an increase in major earthquakes but it appears that it have been so in minor ones.

Not necessarily, and I've explained why.

Because I see no other way to account for a rise from 4827 m3 earthquakes in 2000 compared to 11735 in 2008. Do you?

I think that says there were more detected 3.0-3.9 quakes in 2008 than in 2000. The reason you have to harp on that is because the two rows you posted above are the only two sets of data about which you can even remotely make such a claim.

As for explanations, one is certainly that there were just straight up more quakes of that general magnitude. Another is that there were simply more quakes around monitoring stations. Yet another consideration is that the last several years have seen a number of key improvements in quake detection, especially in locations previously hard to reach (like the ocean floor), which can account for increases in detections over time. Of course, I've already made this point. You're welcome to ignore it now as you have before.

Be that as it may, I ask you again: so what?

Did you read this article from www.usgs.gov? it waqs written in February 2010.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

Magnitude 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
8.0 to 9.9 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 4 0 1 1
7.0 to 7.9 14 15 13 14 14 10 9 14 12 16 7
6.0 to 6.9 146 121 127 140 141 140 142 178 168 142 81
5.0 to 5.9 1344 1224 1201 1203 1515 1693 1712 2074 1768 1754 902
4.0 to 4.9 8008 7991 8541 8462 10888 13917 12838 12078 12291 6928 4171
3.0 to 3.9 4827 6266 7068 7624 7932 9191 9990 9889 11735 2898 1614
2.0 to 2.9 3765 4164 6419 7727 6316 4636 4027 3597 3860 3007 1206
1.0 to 1.9 1026 944 1137 2506 1344 26 18 42 21 25 13
0.1 to 0.9 5 1 10 134 103 0 2 2 0 1 0
No Magnitude 3120 2807 2938 3608 2939 864 828 1807 1922 20 21
Total 22256 23534 27454 31419 31194 30478 29568 29685 31777 * 14792 * 8016
Estimated
Deaths 231 21357 1685 33819 228802 88003 6605 712 88011 1787 225492

And yes, the numbers are drastically lower the last two years. But you don't suppose that could have something to do with: "Starting in January 2009, the USGS National Earthquake Information Center no longer locates earthquakes smaller than magnitude 4.5 outside the United States, unless we receive specific information that the earthquake was felt or caused damage."? (from the very same USGS page)

Up til they stopped registrering m4,5 and lower there was quite an increase in minor earthquakes, which is apparent if you just look at the numbers in the fact sheet above. So, no, there haven't been an increase in major earthquakes but it appears that it have been so in minor ones. Because I see no other way to account for a rise from 4827 m3 earthquakes in 2000 compared to 11735 in 2008. Do you?

I notice that you didn't adress this:"I also noticed that there seem to be quite some activity going on in Yellowstone, Mt st. Helens, Juan de Fuca and Mt Rainier (a guy, dgavin, at baut forum have been monitoring these,), the threads are found here: http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php/18-Science-and-Technology?s=c71fe0d2fbf2e89c86155dcc20815799"

What exactly about that am I supposed to address?

Do you think that this might be signs of an earth wakening up?

I don't even know what the phrase "earth [waking] up" is supposed to mean. It was never asleep, as far as I know.

Heard some geologist talk about that earthquakes are not at all abnormal, and perhaps the last hundred years have been particularly calm and we might now enter a period of higher seismic activity that actually is closer to earths normal activity than previous period was. Could this be true.

Richard, I am not a geologist, as I have told you several times before. All I can do is rely on the data and expertise of others.

and the link you provided (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php) does indeed show a drastic increase in earthquakes, albeit not major ones.

No, it doesn't.

For example, m2-m4,5 earthquakes seems to have increased quite significantly from 2000 til now (at least until USGS stopped registrering those outside of US in 2009).

I have no idea what you're looking at. Total from 2000 to 2009:

22256
23534
27454
31419
31194
30478
29568
29685
31777
14792

2.0-2.9:

3765
4164
6419
7727
6316
4636
4027
3597
3860
3007
1206

Similar trends for 3.0-3.9 and 4.0-4.9.

Please point out to me where this "drastic increase in earthquakes" occurs, because I'm squinting really hard and still can't see it. If anything, there was a drastic decrease last year, and the totals for 2000 and 2001 were slightly lower than the mean for the rest of the decade. The totals for small quakes positively bottomed out in the second half of the decade, dropping to single and double digit totals for 0.1-1.9.

Fluctuations between totals of 27K and 31K are not "drastic" by any stretch of the imagination. You see similar trends in the 1990s, though with lower totals, which are probably attributable to inferior equipment and fewer monitoring stations. I haven't taken the time to track down the actual prevalence of monitoring stations from 1990 to 1999 versus 2000 to 2009, but it's not an unreasonable bit of speculation.

One clue could be the numbers of deaths. The mean from 1990 to 1999 was about 11,400 per year. From 2000 to 2010, the mean is currently about 63,300 per year. However, this figure is spiked by the 2004 total, thanks to the 9.0 quake and subsequent tsunami, and this year's major quake in Haiti. Without those two figures, the mean is only about double the 1990s figure, and it's still spiked by a pair of bad quakes in 2005 (Pakistan) and 2008 (China), each of which hit heavily populated areas and contributed to most of the death totals for those years. All in all, and considering where the quakes occurred in addition to how strong they were, there's nothing sinister or even surprising to be concerned over, save for the obvious consideration that some regions are prone to weather these disasters worse than others.

Anyway, keeping in mind that three large quakes nailed populated regions in 2004, 2008 and 2010, the death totals between the two decades are not dramatically different even though the number of quakes detected has grown with more monitoring stations and newer equipment.

Here's yet another page that seems to support increasment of earthquakes over time: http://research.dlindquist.com/quake/historical/?mag=0&type=strength&freq=year&style=raw What di you make of that?

What makes you say that graph supports and "[increase] of earthquakes over time?" It dates back to 1973, and I can assure you that earthquake detection was not all that great in 1973, at least not relative to the state of the science twenty years later and, even more importantly, now. The most you can say by looking at such a graph is that fewer quakes were recorded during the earlier years. Note, however, that the fluctuations remain fairly constant even as the alleged total of detected quakes goes up (and I assume those numbers are legitimate). Also, that chart is for 6.x quakes only. Selecting the All Quakes option yields a result that isn't quite so dramatic and seems, to me, to reflect the gradual improvements in equipment and detection capabilities.

Are they also less credible, or could there be some truth in all this (that overall seismic activity is increasing)?

There is nothing under any of those rocks you've turned over that points toward "overall seismic activity … increasing." We've been over this, and over it, and over it, and over it again.

Also, this site (please disregard the bible extremism) talks about a major increase in earthquake activity in the san fransisco region: http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/Prophecy/EARTHQUAKES/Earthquake!.html Is there any truth to that?

The article starts off with a lie — "…since the beginning of the year there have been a remarkable number of quakes…" — so I'm disinclined to take it seriously. Even if that statement were true, so what?

As for San Francisco, I have no idea. As for the total number of > 4.0 quakes this year so far, if anything, it's lower than the mean. You can see for yourself in the same USGS chart I've linked for you and other people dozens of times.

And here is the article about how earthquakes and such are expected to increase due to global warming: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/07/disasters

When you say, "earthquakes and such are expected to increase due to global warming," what you mean is one guy wrote an article without citing any sources, in which he (the one guy) expects volcanoes to erupt more often due to increased pressure on the crust, and he makes a passing mention of a large quake if Greenland's ice shelf were to break loose. Again, I'm not a geologist, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume for argument's sake that he has at least some factual backing for that article. He seems to be a volcanologist, after all. So, assuming that, so what?

And finally, this is yet another article that supports a major increase in earthquake activity in the California region: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/california-sees-increase-in-earthquake-sesimologists-fight-twitter-rumors.html

Why is this significant? And, as I said, the overall total is nothing remarkable, even if California has seen a high for the decade. And I repeat that — the decade. Not the highest total ever, but the highest for the decade. In any given span of years, one year will always have the highest total, no matter what you're counting.

Again, I'm not saying that this will be the end of times…

I don't know what you're saying, honestly.

But there is an increase in earthquake activity,

No, there isn't. Given the nature of earthquakes as a phenomenon, "increase in earthquake activity" isn't even a meaningful phrase.

that's most likelly nothing to worry about

That much is correct.

And here is the article about how earthquakes and such are expected to increase due to global warming: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/07/disasters

And finally, this is yet another article that supports a major increase in earthquake activity in the California region: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/california-sees-increase-in-earthquake-sesimologists-fight-twitter-rumors.html

Again, I'm not saying that this will be the end of times… But there is an increase in earthquake activity, that's most likelly nothing to worry about

and the link you provided (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php) does indeed show a drastic increase in earthquakes, albeit not major ones. For example, m2-m4,5 earthquakes seems to have increased quite significantly from 2000 til now (at least until USGS stopped registrering those outside of US in 2009). I'm not ascribing any kind of significance to this, but it look's like earthquake activity has in fact increased over time.

Here's yet another page that seems to support increasment of earthquakes over time: http://research.dlindquist.com/quake/historical/?mag=0&type=strength&freq=year&style=raw What di you make of that?

As you said, increases over a small timescale such as 100 years isn't in any way significant, but what do you make of this? Are they also less credible, or could there be some truth in all this (that overall seismic activity is increasing)?

Came across a page about how major earthquakes seem to have been increasing quite drastically over the past 13 years or so: http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/.

Well, they haven't been. I think we've been here several times already. Also, geologically speaking, 1973 to 2006 is hardly sufficient to establish any "long term trends." The person who posted that article is also committing the error of failing to understand that human population has become more spread out, and earthquake detection capabilities have increased exponentially. It is simply wrong to look at a per year increase trend (assuming there is one, which there isn't to my knowledge, at least not significantly over the last few decades) and say, "Oh, look, a drastic increase in earthquakes!" There's simply no way to know that and it, most likely, is not true.

But he seems to rely on some credible facts, and major earthquakes does in fact seem to have been increasing latelly.

Where? And no.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

If you want to believe some guy's rant about Jesus coming back over the USGS, I really don't have much else to add that will be of any value to you.

This is the equivalent of one additional magnitude 7.0 earthquake EACH YEAR!

Why is this significant?

there are 37 more 7.0 earthquakes per year in 2009 than there were in 1973.

The USGS records 16 7.0-7.9 quakes for 2009, so that is patently incorrect. Somebody with an agenda is making up numbers.

And I was thinking about how all the Nibiruians claim that this (earthquake increase) is a sign of Nibiru being near us, if so were the case, wouldn't we see an increase in m8+ earthquakes too? Or would we even see an increase in earthquakes before it were to late?

There is no "earthquake increase," and Nibiru is imaginary. I won't pretend to know what we would feel on Earth when perturbed by the gravity of a massive rogue planet, but I will tell you as I have several times before that I saw a simulation of a brown dwarf mass passing through that tossed Venus out into deep space.

Also, do you know why earthquakes seem to disappear from USGS stats?

Numbers are revised as more data is assembled after the fact, similar to investigations performed in the wake of tornadoes.

So, what do you guys make of this?

Bunk.

Is this something that we all need to worry about in the future?

No.

"So, if you had three 6.0 earthquakes, two 7.0, and one 8.0 in "Year One", and in "Year Two" had three 6.0, two 7.0, and one 8.0 quake and one quake of 8.1; your graph would indicate an increase of 1 earthquake greater than 6.0 — but in reality you would have experienced more DOUBLE the amount of seismic activity ("shaking")."

Since earthquakes are recorded Logarithmic Sale, that would mean a magnitude 8.0 earthquake is 10 times stronger than a 7.0 instead of 2 times as strong?

And what exactly is a linear scale?

I also noticed that there seem to be quite some activity going on in Yellowstone, Mt st. Helens, Juan de Fuca and Mt Rainier (a guy, dgavin, at baut forum have been monitoring these,), the threads are found here: http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php/18-Science-and-Technology?s=c71fe0d2fbf2e89c86155dcc20815799

I also found this (on.. ehrm.. GLP): http://www.thehorizonproject.com/earthquakes.cfm That seems rather terrifying to be honest. Are you all sure that all this isn't leading up to something? Now I'm not talking about doomsday, but a MAJOR earthquake/volcanic event of some kind (Yellowstone etc.)

Here I found a blog that talked about how and why that previous graph was wrong: http://www.scientificblogging.com/florilegium/blog/why_so_many_earthquakes_decade
But someone left a comment and said that the author of that site was wrong and that there had been a significant increase in earthquake activity:
"Your graph is WRONG! It assumes that every earthquake over 6.0 causes tha same amount of shaking.
It would still be wrong even if you assigned each magnitude a different value in your graph. This is because the Richter Scale is LOGARITHMIC.

So, if you had three 6.0 earthquakes, two 7.0, and one 8.0 in "Year One", and in "Year Two" had three 6.0, two 7.0, and one 8.0 quake and one quake of 8.1; your graph would indicate an increase of 1 earthquake greater than 6.0 — but in reality you would have experienced more DOUBLE the amount of seismic activity ("shaking").
If you assign each magnitude an appropriate value on a LINEAR SCALE rather than a LOGARITHMIC SCALE, then you would see that there has indeed been a significant increase of seismicity over the past 4 decades.

Actually, there has been an increase in major seismic activity from 1973 to 2009 (the years for which there is online information at USGS.gov)

I was curious, so I took only those quakes of 7.0 magnitude or greater for each year and compared the seismic action on a linear scale (rather than the logarithmic Richter scale). Obviously, there are years of high seismic activity and years of low activity; but, when I ran an OLS regression the slope was +0.97 per year over 37 years. This is the equivalent of one additional magnitude 7.0 earthquake EACH YEAR! Keeping in mind that the quake that recently leveled Haiti was a 7.0 magnitude quake, there are 37 more 7.0 earthquakes per year in 2009 than there were in 1973. That's significantly more shaking now than in 1973.

Anyone can do the same analysis that I did and get the same result." (the last comment on the page)

And I was thinking about how all the Nibiruians claim that this (earthquake increase) is a sign of Nibiru being near us, if so were the case, wouldn't we see an increase in m8+ earthquakes too? Or would we even see an increase in earthquakes before it were to late?

Also, do you know why earthquakes seem to disappear from USGS stats? Last time I looked there was 84 registered m6+ earthquakes, and now there were only 81.

So, what do you guys make of this? Is this something that we all need to worry about in the future?