>> ^spoco2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink">criticalthud: "your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years."
Um, no they don't.
8-9.9 Mag earthquakes: have just hung around 0-1 every year with a couple of years having 2, and one 4. And it's not ramping up or anything, there were NONE in 2008.
7-7.9 : Hanging around the teens to low twenties every year with some very low ones in the last few years.
etc. etc.
Have a look at the graphs, look at the total energy from earthquakes. See how compared to 1900 it's LOWER? See how in the last half of the last decade it's DROPPED?
Really, the figures show NOTHING like an upward trend AT ALL.
So just give it up trying to suggest that the facts support what you're saying.
I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening, I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to reduce our impact FAR quicker than the monolithically slow speed at which things are being done. And that we couldn't have already been largely running on renewable energy already if the governments had actually put some effort in. But the figures are not supporting what you're saying, so really stop trying to say they do.
That's all I'm saying, stop using your perception that there are more earthquakes etc. and look at the figures and learn to read data properly. Individual year spikes mean nothing, look at trends.


energy is one measurement. overall number is another. i hope you are right. i'm not the only one looking at this possibility tho.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317.abstract

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^criticalthud:
http://ne


ws.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110107/sc_yblog_thelookout/florida-temporarily-closes-runway-due-to-magnetic-pole-shifting
i'm not trying to open a can of worms, or threaten anyone's "beliefs". but this appears to be happening.

Yeah, and um, from THAT article: "The Earth's poles are changing constantly... "
You really liked the movie 2012 didn't you?
sigh

sigh.
that article is just a quick google to show that even mainstream media has noticed it.
the gov goes to great lengths to not alarm it's workforce. a steady diet of charlie sheen. sigh
sigh sigh
all theories can be conspiracy theories if you wish to label them as that. and you're trolling. fuck you.

I am so NOT trolling, I'm just sick of people like you that see some natural disasters and then start saying 'THERE'S SO MANY MORE NOW! THE WORLD IS ENDING!'
Really?
Where's the increase in earthquakes? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/quake1.html
Where? Take a look at the numbers and tell me you're seeing an increase over the last 30 years, because you aren't. Because there hasn't been, because it's bullshit.
Stop using just your perception that 'gee, there seems to have been a lot of earthquakes' as an empirical measurement, look at the ACTUAL FIGURES before you start saying such things. And stop relying SOLEY on nut job websites for all your 'facts'

fine. stop using comments designed to create an emotional response.
your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years.
what i'm saying that if you increase the total mass of the worlds oceans, and reduce mass at the axis of rotation, coupled with water current patterns that will concentrate these masses differently than what has occurred in the last, say, 1 million years, we may very well be seeing enough change to affect very unstable plate movements that occur on a fairly consistent basis.
this isn't a 2012 conspiracy. and the world isn't ending. and maybe i am crazy. i sincerely hope i am.
but we are just starting to understand how fragile our ecosystem is, and how dependent we are on the stasis of it....and that underestimating such fragility can come at a very high cost.
look at what we are doing to the rest of the planet, the rest of the ecosystem. why is it so inconceivable that we may also be affecting something that is constantly teetering as it is?


and what further alarms me is that with a system that has taken a few billion years to find a relatively stable equilibrium, it's adaptation to change also takes time, on a different scale than we're used to (a plantetary time-frame), meaning we may be now just seeing the effects of our changes to the climate, and meaning that these adaptations could continue well after we've ceased mucking about.

@criticalthud: "your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years."

Um, no they don't.

* 8-9.9 Mag earthquakes: have just hung around 0-1 every year with a couple of years having 2, and one 4. And it's not ramping up or anything, there were NONE in 2008.
* 7-7.9 : Hanging around the teens to low twenties every year with some very low ones in the last few years.

etc. etc.

Have a look at the graphs, look at the total energy from earthquakes. See how compared to 1900 it's LOWER? See how in the last half of the last decade it's DROPPED?

Really, the figures show NOTHING like an upward trend AT ALL.

So just give it up trying to suggest that the facts support what you're saying.

I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening, I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to reduce our impact FAR quicker than the monolithically slow speed at which things are being done. And that we couldn't have already been largely running on renewable energy already if the governments had actually put some effort in. But the figures are not supporting what you're saying, so really stop trying to say they do.

That's all I'm saying, stop using your perception that there are more earthquakes etc. and look at the figures and learn to read data properly. Individual year spikes mean nothing, look at trends.

>> ^criticalthud:

people.
Seismic activity has increased along with global warming.
Logic, physics, and probability all say that when you shift the mass of the earth (ice caps melting), seismic activity will increase. And it has, by a lot...in the last 30 years.
The poles are shifting.
This is the earth adjusting.
This is akin to shifting the mass of a spinning toy top.
It doesn't matter what you believe. You can believe in an invisible god-man in the sky too. This is about physics and reality. and it is going to get worse.


The only similarity I see to a spinning toy here is the part about spinning.

You have a deep seeded religious belief that mankind is destroying mother Earth, fine. That doesn't make it acceptable for you to cheaply use the deaths of tens of thousands as a soap box to preach your beliefs at us. It's insulting and despicable, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Or if your just trolling, well played....

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^criticalthud:
http://ne


ws.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110107/sc_yblog_thelookout/florida-temporarily-closes-runway-due-to-magnetic-pole-shifting
i'm not trying to open a can of worms, or threaten anyone's "beliefs". but this appears to be happening.

Yeah, and um, from THAT article: "The Earth's poles are changing constantly... "
You really liked the movie 2012 didn't you?
sigh

sigh.
that article is just a quick google to show that even mainstream media has noticed it.
the gov goes to great lengths to not alarm it's workforce. a steady diet of charlie sheen. sigh
sigh sigh
all theories can be conspiracy theories if you wish to label them as that. and you're trolling. fuck you.

I am so NOT trolling, I'm just sick of people like you that see some natural disasters and then start saying 'THERE'S SO MANY MORE NOW! THE WORLD IS ENDING!'
Really?
Where's the increase in earthquakes? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/quake1.html
Where? Take a look at the numbers and tell me you're seeing an increase over the last 30 years, because you aren't. Because there hasn't been, because it's bullshit.
Stop using just your perception that 'gee, there seems to have been a lot of earthquakes' as an empirical measurement, look at the ACTUAL FIGURES before you start saying such things. And stop relying SOLEY on nut job websites for all your 'facts'


fine. stop using comments designed to create an emotional response.
your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years.
what i'm saying that if you increase the total mass of the worlds oceans, and reduce mass at the axis of rotation, coupled with water current patterns that will concentrate these masses differently than what has occurred in the last, say, 1 million years, we may very well be seeing *enough* change to affect very unstable plate movements that occur on a fairly consistent basis.
this isn't a 2012 conspiracy. and the world isn't ending. and maybe i am crazy. i sincerely hope i am.
but we are just starting to understand how fragile our ecosystem is, and how dependent we are on the stasis of it....and that underestimating such fragility can come at a very high cost.
look at what we are doing to the rest of the planet, the rest of the ecosystem. why is it so inconceivable that we may also be affecting something that is constantly teetering as it is?

>> ^guymontage:

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.
I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurren
ce
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.

The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.
If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.
More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.


fantastic. i would be very happy if science could disprove this theory. but we're still looking at probability.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased

Source, please.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2439&from=rss_home
"Scientists say 2010 is not showing signs of unusually high earthquake activity. Since 1900, an average of 16 magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes — the size that seismologists define as major — have occurred worldwide each year. Some years have had as few as 6, as in 1986 and 1989, while 1943 had 32, with considerable variability from year to year."
Increasing population densities do mean earthquakes will be more devastating than before.

yes
http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
i'm not a geological scientist, but i think we should be concerned


*sigh*... you're doing the common alarmist and conspiracy theorist thing of ONLY looking at sites which are non professional. ONLY believing people who take whatever data there is and come to YOUR conclusion. Ignoring any that use ACTUAL proper science and CORRECT data analysis to disprove your line of thinking. You do this saying 'I don't trust the major sources of information'... which just means that you only believe those that don't grasp it properly.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm

Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.

I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurrence
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.


The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.

If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.

More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased
Source?

http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
and google "poles shifting"
we are looking at trends of course. and theory...ie: probability.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
It depends on where you look or who you ask. I could see higher sea levels affecting plate tension, but the end effect is unknown. The quake off the coast of Japan has likely been building tension for several thousand years, so it's a stretch to blame that on climate change.

As far as the poles shifting, that isn't new. They always move around at varying speeds and have even flipped entirely multiple times in the earth's history.


yes yes, of course this has always gone on. moreso with a younger planet, finding it's equilibrium. But we're looking at recent trends and recent changes to the ecosystem. recent increases that coincide with recent changes in other areas. that's all.
i'm not saying there is a definite correlation, i'm only saying that probability suggests that there may indeed be a strong correlation.
science is all about making hypothesis based on probability, then sorting it out from there.
i'm no geologist. i do neuro theory. however, any change in neurology requires that the whole system adapt, no matter how small the change is. and some aspects of the whole (the neurological aspect) create far more change to the whole than other aspects, regardless of relative size.

>> ^Contagion21:

>> ^criticalthud:
Logic, physics, and probability all say that when you shift the mass of the earth (ice caps melting), seismic activity will increase.
Wow.. stretch much? I'm not sure if that's an Appeal to Authority (to the sciences of Logic, Physics and Probability) or just Begging the Question (that the mass of the earth has shifted).
Given the relative mass of the crust, and even smaller relative mass of the ice upon that crust, I would wager that the ice caps could completely and totally melt and have an almost, if not entirely, imperceptible difference on the mass distribution for the planet as a whole.
You're doing a disservice to the understanding we have for plate tectonics to imply that earthquakes increase due to global warming and that this isn't just the simple, and well understood case of a massive earthquake due to a subduction zone between the Pacific and North American plates.
However, feel free to back up any of the following claims:
1) Seismic activity has increased
2) Melting ice has a meaningful impact on planetary mass distribution
3) The poles are shifting


yep. could be a stretch.
we could also wager that bringing millions of years worth of jurassic carbon deposits to the surface and burning them in a short period of time couldn't possibly effect our environment. Or we could wager that our surface environment is just a tad bit more fragile than we thought.
i'm just looking at trends, especially over the last 30 years.

But let's say we have just a few milimeters of overall rise in sea levels. That's an awful lot of mass. and then that mass must adapt to currents, concentrating that mass in different ways.
are you a geoscientist? I'm interested in your insights.
pole shifting...or wandering. google it. same with seismic activity.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased
Source?

http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
and google "poles shifting"
we are looking at trends of course. and theory...ie: probability.


http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php

It depends on where you look or who you ask. I could see higher sea levels affecting plate tension, but the end effect is unknown. The quake off the coast of Japan has likely been building tension for several thousand years, so it's a stretch to blame that on climate change.


As far as the poles shifting, that isn't new. They always move around at varying speeds and have even flipped entirely multiple times in the earth's history.

>> ^criticalthud:

Logic, physics, and probability all say that when you shift the mass of the earth (ice caps melting), seismic activity will increase.

Wow.. stretch much? I'm not sure if that's an Appeal to Authority (to the sciences of Logic, Physics and Probability) or just Begging the Question (that the mass of the earth has shifted).

Given the relative mass of the crust, and even smaller relative mass of the ice upon that crust, I would wager that the ice caps could completely and totally melt and have an almost, if not entirely, imperceptible difference on the mass distribution for the planet as a whole.

You're doing a disservice to the understanding we have for plate tectonics to imply that earthquakes increase due to global warming and that this isn't just the simple, and well understood case of a massive earthquake due to a subduction zone between the Pacific and North American plates.


However, feel free to back up any of the following claims:

1) Seismic activity has increased

2) Melting ice has a meaningful impact on planetary mass distribution

3) The poles are shifting

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased
Source?


http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm

and google "poles shifting"

we are looking at trends of course. and theory...ie: probability.

>> ^criticalthud:

Seismic activity has increased

Source?

>> ^rebuilder:

>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased

Source, please.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2439&from=rss_home
"Scientists say 2010 is not showing signs of unusually high earthquake activity. Since 1900, an average of 16 magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes — the size that seismologists define as major — have occurred worldwide each year. Some years have had as few as 6, as in 1986 and 1989, while 1943 had 32, with considerable variability from year to year."
Increasing population densities do mean earthquakes will be more devastating than before.


yes
http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
i'm not a geological scientist, but i think we should be concerned