Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Too many earthquakes

  1. Mar 4, 2010 #1
    First Haiti, then Chile, and now http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_taiwan_earthquake" [Broken] what the hell is going on here? Why are there so many earthquakes, happening so fast? Is there a scientific, geological explanation for why there are so many earthquakes, more than we would usually see? Are the tectonic plates shifting?

    There could be another reason for this, but I can't discuss those matters on this forum without being warned or banned by the moderators. Which I am now on the verge of being banned.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 4, 2010 #2

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The same reason train wrecks and other disasters come in waves: preferential news reporting.

    You'll note that the Taiwan quake was kid stuff. No deaths. This happens a zillion times day around the world and never makes the news. Until it's news.



    Strange article. Contradictory.
    [said Kuo Kai-wen, director, Central Weather Bureau's Seismology Center].
    Then later in the article:
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2010
  4. Mar 4, 2010 #3
    It's just your impression.

    Fact is, the rate has remained relatively steady.

    What HAS INCREASED is the number of ground stations beingable to record these seismic events.

    Information is available to read here.

    Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase ?

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php" [Broken]

    And here for more general stats.

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php" [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  5. Mar 4, 2010 #4

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Code (Text):
     [PLAIN]http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
    [/PLAIN] [Broken]

    More data is available here.

    Code (Text):
    [PLAIN]http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php
    [/PLAIN] [Broken]

    Er, you want to be lookin' for this icon: https://www.physicsforums.com/Nexus/editor/createlink.png [Broken],[/URL] not this one: https://www.physicsforums.com/Nexus/editor/code.png [Broken]


    :wink:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. Mar 4, 2010 #5
    Dave thankyou.

    My coding skills are not what they used to be.

    Apologies to Mods. I will correct those posts.

    Cheers
     
  7. Mar 4, 2010 #6
    The Richter Scale Wiki.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

    I wish I could highlight the chart of frequency of quakes but I don't know how.


    Anyhow scroll down a bit and check out the frequency chart on the wiki. An average year for Earthquakes means many large quakes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  8. Mar 4, 2010 #7
    The distribution of earthquakes is thought to obey fractal statistics. This means that over the long term the distribution of earthquakes is quite well behaved, in accordance with the basic law that you have lots of small earthquakes and few large earthquakes over a long period of time. However the law says nothing about when these earthquakes WILL occur, if for example you expected a magnitude 9.0 earthquake once every 30 years, and then you got two in a week that wouldn't necessarily violate the law, because you might not have another one for 60 years so over the long term the distribution holds. Besides, the Haiti earthquake was not especially strong, it was devastating because of its location but from a geological perspective it was one of those earthquakes that we expect to occur quite frequently, same goes with the Taiwanese earthquake except this one looks to have been less devastating (fortunately); the Chile earthquake was very strong. Incidentally, the largest earthquake you can possibly get is about is about a magnitude 9.2 (measured in degree of shaking), increasing the energy input will simply go into tearing up the rocks near the hypercenter and won't propagate as seismic waves.
     
  9. Mar 4, 2010 #8
    Yes, if you write something like this:

    From deep within the Earth's interior, a huge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume" [Broken].

    You could be admonished by the moderators. :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  10. Mar 4, 2010 #9
    Why were there so many more casualties in the Haitian quake than in the Chilean quake?
     
  11. Mar 4, 2010 #10

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Surely, you know answers to this.
    eg.
    - location of epicenter relative to populated areas
    - widespread poverty leading to substandard (or nonexistent) building codes
    - etc.
     
  12. Mar 4, 2010 #11
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=massive-himalayan-earthqu"

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  13. Jun 12, 2010 #12
    The Absolute and SamTHorn: What exactly are you implying might be the cause of this? Please don't say that it's something like a rogue planet?:confused:

    Anyhow, I thought about this specific topic (increases in earthquakes) and thought I would ask you if anyone knows why there seems to be quite an uptick in m2-m4 earthquakes since the beginning of 2000 til now?(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php [Broken])

    And I know, the last two years show a drastic decrease, but only due to the fact that no m4,5 or less was registrered outside the US.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  14. Jun 13, 2010 #13

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It does appear that the number/frequency of earthquakes is increasing, or the detection is just better, or a combination.

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php [Broken]

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/info_1990s.php [Broken]

    I suspect it goes in waves like the climate does.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  15. Jun 13, 2010 #14

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I would have to lean towards detection, plus the combination of information traveling quickly among a more populated planet. Our ability to detect earthquakes spans in such a tiny fraction of the time that earthquakes have been happening.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  16. Jul 14, 2010 #15
    " elastic strain energy is released and elastic waves are radiated, leading to an earthquake. Induced earthquakes may happen for a variety of reasons, including extraction of minerals from Earth and the collapse of large buildings... " so don't be so afraid of the natural phenomenon. it happens according to its own rules and it exists. so your worrying won't help!
     
  17. Mar 25, 2011 #16
    There is an increase in stronger earthquakes globally (M>5.0), this information is available to the public, see USGS page ( http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php" [Broken]).

    Why are there more stronger earthquakes? Some have hypothesized that the increase may be caused by the melting of glaciers globally. The theory states that melting glaciers will reduce the load on the Earth's crust, increasing tetonic plate movement. Melted water from the glaciers flows into the ocean and increases the load in another location. It would be this change in loading that could increase tetonic motion and increase earthquake activity. This theory was put forward by a joint NASA-USGS study http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html" [Broken].

    It is important to note that the NASA-USGS study also shows that the melting of glaciers may increase earthquake frequency in areas that are otherwise inactive.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  18. Mar 25, 2011 #17

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can you direct me to where, on that page, it actually says there is an increase and that the increase is statistically significant?

    Because if not, the rest of your post is dead in its tracks.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  19. Mar 25, 2011 #18
    Earthquake statistics for 2000, 2010 and 2011 (projections) are as follows for M*>5.0:

    2000: 1505
    2010: 2117
    2011 (projections): 3571.

    Therefore, when compared with the year 2000, there were 41% more earthquakes (M*>5.0) in 2010 and the projections yield a 137% increase for 2011, when compared with 2000. After the M9.0 in Japan there has been an increase in stronger earthquakes. Some experts say that the total number of earthquakes has not changed globally, however, these results show an increase in stronger earthquakes (M*>5.0).

    Finally, it is also important to emphasize other scientific facts that support this. In the past, increasing atmospheric temperatures and melting glaciers lead to an increase in earthquake activity, see NASA-USGS article.
     
  20. Mar 25, 2011 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Looking at how widely the frequencies of the other magnitudes change, it doesn't look at all unusual to me to see large swings from one year to the next. Do you have an actual statistical analysis or are those numbers it?

    ...and have you read the parts of your own link that debunk your claims? From the link:
    and:
    When your own source directly contradicts your assertion, it's going to be tough to get any traction on your claims...
     
  21. Mar 25, 2011 #20

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This is bordering on misinformation.

    First off, where did you get that projection?

    Secondly, and more importantly, you are looking at small (less than magnitude 6.0) earthquakes here. Our ability to detect and locate those small earthquakes is on the increase. That does not mean that the number of earthquakes is on the increase. Our ability to detect and locate large earthquakes hasn't improved all that much for the simple reason that we had the ability to detect and locate almost all such events a long time ago.

    From this page, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php [Broken],
    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) has stayed relatively constant.

    From http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php [Broken],
    We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.

    A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more than 8,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by electronic mail, internet and satellite.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook