Earthquake frequency - also dramatically increasing?

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I have compiled this data in the past couple of days (I'll make some graphs in next few days). This is the frequency of earthquakes worldwide. I hope the table looks lined up in most browsers.

Used the "USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present" database to compile info:
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_global.html

MAGNITUDE
1-1.9 2-2.9 3-3.9 4-4.9 5-5.9 6-6.9 7-7.9 8-8.9 9-9.9 TOTAL
1980 2 79 1725 3271 1299 105 13 1 0 7348
1981 3 109 1082 3209 1168 90 13 0 0 6829
1982 3 170 1128 3232 1425 85 10 0 0 7747
1983 8 291 1578 3563 1673 126 14 0 0 9842
1984 37 442 1579 3683 1579 91 8 0 0 10493
1985 97 935 1764 4281 1674 110 13 1 0 13115
1986 153 1169 1942 4476 1665 89 4 2 0 12718
1987 102 1037 1806 4146 1437 112 11 0 0 11290
1988 118 1479 1932 4018 1485 93 8 0 0 12711
1989 418 1905 2449 4089 1444 79 6 1 0 14562
1990 474 2358 2453 4488 1634 111 18 0 0 11536
1991 801 2919 2946 4369 1469 98 18 0 0 16484
1992 886 3063 4640 5153 1521 163 24 0 0 19524
1993 1177 5390 4263 5034 1449 141 15 1 0 21476
1994 779 5369 5000 4544 1542 161 13 2 0 19371
1995 645 3838 5002 8140 1327 185 22 3 0 21007
1996 295 2388 4869 8794 1223 160 21 1 0 19938
1997 388 2397 4467 7938 1118 125 20 0 0 19872
1998 805 4091 5945 7303 979 113 14 2 0 21688
1999 715 4201 5521 7042 1106 123 23 0 0 20832
2000 1026 3758 4784 8045 1345 153 16 4 0 22256
2001 944 4162 6151 8084 1243 124 15 3 0 23534
2002 1137 6419 7005 8584 1218 130 12 1 0 27454
2003 2506 7725 7578 8454 1252 145 16 1 0 31419
2004 (1344) (6316) 7915 10783 1637 146 14 1 1 (31200)
2005 (26) (4635) 9136 13712 1939 154 11 1 0 (30479)
2006 (19) (4012) 9923 13048 1529 139 11 1 0 (29534)
2007 (2) (451) 1134 1814 331 34 2 1 0 (4197)

- ( ) indicates that data (as explained below) was clearly missing from the database, so those numbers were impacted by that hole in the data.
- Totals were computed including NO MAGNITUDE strength earthquakes, but I couldn't (yet) find a way to isolate that data so it is not shown in the table.
- From July 1 2004 until Today and still ongoing - data almost completely missing for all earthquakes of magnitudes 0 to 2.4 in that time period. Why is the data no longer recorded for those magnitudes? Does anyone know of a source that has this data? I thought that was pretty strange.

The C's said:

A: Disasters involve cycles in the human experiential cycle which corresponds to the passage of comet cluster.

Q: (J) Going back to the event of this morning, when J*** related his experience of it to me, he said that when he opened his eyes that the light looked yellow... (V) I noticed the discoloration too... (J) Was that related to the event?
A: Yes.
Q: (J) What caused the light to change color?
A: Leftover 4th density effects.
Q: (L) Is this something that is going to be happening more and more as we move to 4th density?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is this electromagnetic charging of the atmosphere, I am assuming that is what it is, and that it is occurring as part of the shifting of densities...
A: Yes.
Q: (L) If it is an electromagnetic charging of the atmosphere, is this charging coming about because of this oncoming wave and effects that we are beginning to feel more and more of, are they part of the wave, its presence or approach?
A: It is a buildup, similar to the early effects preceding the arrival of a sea wave.
Q: (T) Are the extremely high winds they have been experiencing in North Carolina and California and the earthquakes in Japan all related to this?
A: Yes.

I'm thinking that the meteors in the other thread and the earthquakes in this thread might not all be due to "more reading instruments".

As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) have stayed relatively constant. See: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php

But then, why did large (5.0+) earthquakes stay relatively constant if number of seismographs has increased? Wouldn't all magnitude earthquakes increase in number from more seismographs in more places?

 

[anart]

But then, why did large (5.0+) earthquakes stay relatively constant if number of seismographs has increased? Wouldn't all magnitude earthquakes increase in number from more seismographs in more places?

I could be mistaken, but I think that once an earthquake is as large as 6.0 that seismographs all over the planet can detect it - so an increase in the number of seismographs would not affect the total number of earthquakes detected. Earthquakes that large can be measured by seismographs on the opposite side of the planet. I do think it's odd that 0 to 2.4 earthquakes haven't been measured since 2004, though.

 

[OCKHAM]

Excellent work.

I'm thinking that the meteors in the other thread and the earthquakes in this thread might not all be due to "more reading instruments".

Do you know how many reading instruments there were in 1980 and 2006. You could plug those numbers into the total amount of recorded quakes for each year to see if they had some equilibrium. If they had some of this, wouldn't that increase the probability that your hypothesis is correct?

If not this, I'm sure Ark can come up with a way to calculate probability.

You're last question is very interesting indeed. Your data seems to show it does.

Thanks for your work. More research to do.

 

[radish]

But then, why did large (5.0+) earthquakes stay relatively constant if number of seismographs has increased? Wouldn't all magnitude earthquakes increase in number from more seismographs in more places?

Not only did 5+ earthquakes remain constant, the lowest intensity ones dropped off sharply in 2004, whereas quakes of intensity 3-4 did seem to increase. Does this relate to gravitational forces around the earth changing?

 

[radish]

Okay I read the note under the table. Parentheses do not mean negative numbers. Sorry about that.

 

[Anders]

Thanks SAO for posting those data. Good to have an overview of the phenomena and sure does look like the we are approaching a 'downpour'.

I went to the European site to see if it is possible to retrieve the information that SAO was after. Sofar no luck. What I did find was, that there is a discrepancy between the readings on this site and that of USGS.

Below is an example:

http://www.emsc-csem.org/index.php?page=current&sub=filter&start_date=2007-03-24&end_date=2007-03-26&min_mag=4&view=2

2007-03-25 01:08:17.9 20.72 S 169.33 E 30 Mw 6.9 VANUATU 2007-03-26 15:16
2007-03-25 00:41:57.2 37.45 N 136.52 E 10 Mw 6.9 NEAR WEST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN 2007-03-25 11:45
2007-03-25 00:40:02.1 20.67 S 169.43 E 35 G M 7.1 VANUATU 2007-03-26 14:58
2007-03-25 00:40:01.7 20.59 S 169.30 E 40 Mw 7.2 VANUATU 2007-03-25 02:38


http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php

MAP 6.9 2007/03/25 01:08:20 -20.784 169.409 35.0 VANUATU
MAP 2.6 2007/03/25 00:52:35 34.725 -118.731 29.5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MAP 6.7 2007/03/25 00:41:57 37.281 136.602 5.0 NEAR THE WEST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 7.1 2007/03/25 00:40:02 -20.666 169.426 35.0 VANUATU

The Japan earthquake is measured as 6.9 in contrast to 6.7, and also the Vanuatu earthquake is more detailed in the European site.

Whether there is a deliberate under reporting or whether these are just technical anomalies, I am unable to ascertaing due to limited knowledge in that department. If there is deliberate underreporting or downward adjustment of the size of earthquakes, then it would change the graph a bit. I have noticed before that some earthquakes in Europe greater than 2.5 have not been reported on the USGS worldwide earthquake list of quakes, but only on the European site.

Anders

 

[dj]

back when I was following the earthquake activity more closely, my experience was that disinfo is pretty widespread.
Data from different sites often did not correlate well, quakes would show up on one site but not another, etc.
You can find some pretty amazing helicorder readings all over the place if you search out individual seismic recordings (live or near-live)
I recall more than once actually seeing helicorder readings being changed - ie they would show a particular event and during the data update, the complete 24hour pattern would be very different - or they would go offline for a short period and come back with a different pattern (it should take 24 hours for an event to drop off a 24 hour near-live recording, right?)

It was reminiscent of the way the SOHO solar images would sometimes be changed or altered - which I also witnessed, tho' I don't think I ever managed to get image capture proof of it.

One of the most interesting earthquake monitoring sites has apparently been pulled - it monitored stations all over the world in near-live time and very often had some really interesting graphs - the Wake Island graph was frequently bizarro. - anyway I found an image save of what that site looked like - which you can see here - http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/heli2.shtml - I have no idea why cypberspaceorbit saved this image but it shows what a range of data you can quickly review in one place.

I guess the take-home message from this ramble is that in my experience U.S. controlled data is generally suspect - at least data from NASA or USGS. The shock of discovering that simple truth was one of the biggest waker-uppers in my life.

 

[Pierre]

But then, why did large (5.0+) earthquakes stay relatively constant if number of seismographs has increased? Wouldn't all magnitude earthquakes increase in number from more seismographs in more places?

One explanation that comes to mind is that data are twisted.

Another explanation (actually a mere assumption) might be linked to your quotation of the transcript :

A: It is a buildup, similar to the early effects preceding the arrival of a sea wave.

Actually just before a wave reaches a beach the water level decreases. Are we experiencing this quietness before the storm ? Are earthquakes' frequencies slighly dropping just before a dramatic surge ?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Actually just before a wave reaches a beach the water level decreases. Are we experiencing this quietness before the storm ? Are earthquakes' frequencies slighly dropping just before a dramatic surge ?

Could be, but also keep in mind that the data for frequencies 1-1.9 and 2-2.9 is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than it actually is because of that hole in the data, so I suspect those numbers are probably going up in reality. Also, the 2007 data is through March 25/26 so that's obviously incomplete. The biggest thing that bugs me about it is that huge gap in the data - and the gap is not limited because it is still ongoing, it's like they completely stopped monitoring all earthquakes upto frequency 2.4 starting in July 1 2004. Now I'm not very familiar with the significance of this database to the "geological community" but I'd think that something like this would be a huge deal and a LOT of people would be seriously up in arms over this?

Another thing that is less significant but weird nevertheless is, if you scroll down on this page: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_global.html there is a link called "How Many Earthquakes?". Well, strangely enough, that data is very often wrong (not all of it). Supposedly they got it from their own database (the one I used to compile my data), but the stuff they are displaying publically isn't correct in many places, especially during the later years. I noticed this because when I was compiling the data and saw this page, I initially was very happy that they did most of the work for me already. But I had already done some before I noticed that page, and just for kicks (call it paranoia) I cross-referenced the data I got straight from the database and the data they displayed on that page, and lo and behold, there are differences. They are (as far as I've seen) not huge differences, but still I don't know why they exist and if I did something wrong when searching the database or what. In some cases it appears that they have adjusted it on their public table to make it appear a little less like the number of earthquakes is going up as time goes on - or at least make it less obvious? I don't want to see a conspiracy where none exists, I just don't know why the discrepancy exists. If someone cares to go to the database I used and put in the search parameters for a particular year and magnitude and see if they can get the same result as that public table they already have on the site?

Here is are some examples of data that is significantly different from my table above and their table:
Magnitude 8 to to 9.9 data starting at the year 1990 and up
Magnitude 7 to 7.9 data starting at the year 1990 and up.

Basically it appears to me that the lower magnitudes aren't as messed up as higher ones. This is especially significant because at magnitude 1 it makes little difference if there were 2000 earthquakes in a particular year or 2010 earthquakes. But at magnitude 8, it makes a huge difference between 3 earthquakes and 1, etc. But anyway this is of course assuming that the database was not already altered/corrupted to begin with, which may very well be.

And to answer Anart's comment about higher magnitude earthquakes being felt all around the world, and also the numbers and locations of seismographs, I'll do some research and see if I can dig up that info. If somebody has any references that collects frequencies of UFO sightings on a yearly/monthly/daily basis or something, that might be interesting to see. Consider all that data in the context of meteor frequencies and also freak weather and temperature extreme frequencies etc. Also maybe massive bird deaths and other interesting phenomena that could somehow be put on time-based graph or a pattern of some sort. Maybe see how it all correlates to political activities on the planet and look for patterns and possible connections there. Anyway there's tons more data to dig up! I wonder if after having collected all of the above data and plotting it on a 3-dimensional graph... what if it all begins to look like a giant ocean wave? Would be pretty funny..

 

[Rich]

what if it all begins to look like a giant ocean wave?

looks like a good project. My immediate thought was mapping the different axis's in similar fashion to Kolbs learning cycle for every year. ie, each axis (could be more than 4) would be, frequency of UFO sightings, F of earthquakes, f of Neo's etc, as you suggest. you might end up with a kind of spider web. if you then lay each year on top of each other in 3D you might end up with a badly made cornetto?

 

[JGeropoulas]

Actually just before a wave reaches a beach the water level decreases. Are we experiencing this quietness before the storm ? Are earthquakes' frequencies slightly dropping just before a dramatic surge ?

That would parallel the solar minimum we've just entered :

NASA Confirms Solar Storm Warning for 2012 http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm

Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.
This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar maximum in fifty years.

A "solar minimum" means sun-spot levels are at a minimum, which also leads to a reduction in seismic activity. But as this article describes, this reduction is just the "quiet before the storm" -- and the quieter now, the "stormier" later--like a spring being wound.