BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes

Subject: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 01:17 AM

It seems that there has been a dramatic yearly increase in the number of major earthquakes worldwide since 1997. To quote from the article I found:

"Trends since 1986

For example, between 1986 and 1996 (incl), a period of 11 years, there were "just" 15 earthquakes listed by USGS of magnitude 7.0 or greater. This is not markedly different (albeit a slight decrease) from previous (similar periods) of 20th century, where an average of about 18 might be expected.

But between 1997 and 2007 (incl), a period of only 11 years, there were 99 earthquakes with magnitude 7.0 or greater : This is more than a six-fold increase on the previous similar period - and is a stark increase on any earlier decades in 20th century too."

This certainly is worth taking notice of. I'm not drawing any specific conclusions about it, but it does seem to indicate that we are living in a time of increasing seismic instability on planet Earth (as well as increasing climate instability). What might be the reasons for an increasing number of large earthquakes? Does it link to instability in magnetic north, and evidence very strongly suggesting that the physical north polar location (meaning the center of the planet's axis of rotation) is shifting gradually to a new location (it has shifted about 40 miles in the direction of central Russia in recent years)? And what would cause that to happen? Possible changes in gravitational effects due to other more distant factors in the Solar System or the Milky Way Galaxy? Or changes that are limited to the Earth itself? Or changes connected to the Moon? (which is an extraordinarily large satellite for a planet the size of the Earth).

Here's the page:

historical frequency of earthquakes worldwide

Feel free to speculate, argue, object, debunk, poke fun, add your opinion, etc. ;-D As I said, I'm drawing no specific conclusions myself about it, so I don't necessarily have an opinion for you to oppose.

I merely note that there ARE more earthquakes happening of late, and that there is notable instability in magnetic north of late. There is also a quite notable decline occuring in the strength of the planet's magnetic field (not its gravitational field, its magnetic field).

All these things suggest that we are in a time of significant planetary change. We are also in a time of significant social change, political change, and financial change...and climate change.

Interesting that it's all happening at once, isn't it? There might be something more than mere coincidence in that.

Some, of course, are speaking of the "End Times". I would respond to that by saying...the end of one thing is most definitely the beginning of another. The word "apocalypse" is often taken by people to mean "destruction"...but it can also mean a radical change in the overall status quo. It does not have to mean a physical destruction of the world as we know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 01:25 AM

Those bloody Mayans and their bloody calendar!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 01:50 AM

It is a difference in perspective, I suppose, but the USGS website doesn't seem to agree.

Increase in earthquakes


Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase?
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. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate earthquakes more rapidly and to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years.

The NEIC now locates about 20,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 50 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in the environment and natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes.

According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 10:41 AM

Hmmmm. Don't know how that happened- but at least it goes straight to the website. lol

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:05 AM

Granted that we tend to focus our attention on our own personal worlds, but Little Hawk, I just can't believe that there would have been a "more than six-fold increase" in major quakes and no one would have noticed.

I suspect that article you found has some hidden agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:10 AM

Wow! Big blue clickie! ;-D Thanks for the interesting link, Ebbie.

Don - I just got a report on an ancient Mayan hieroglyphic carving that's been decoded at last. It apparently says: "That bloody Don Firth and his bloody damned opinions!!!"

Scholars and archeologists are at a complete loss to offer any explanation of this mysterious and seemingly incomprehensible message from the ancient Mayan civilization, though some have suggested that Don Firth may have been the name of a previously unknown Mayan god or nature spirit... (grin) I expect that a number of very interesting books will soon be written about it.

*****

Back to the earthquake thing. Okay, we have different opinions out there, it seems, as to whether there are more large earthquakes occuring in recent years or not. Hmmm. Now what about social instability, financial instability, political instability, and climatic instability all across planet Earth?

Would anyone say we haven't been having more of those forms of instability in recent years, specially since 2001?

Or is everything just quietly and predictably ticking along as it always has? ;-) What say, folks?

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:19 AM

leeneia - I too think that the article has a hidden agenda (As do a great many articles we read! Perhaps most of them.)

Nevertheless, it drew my attention to something that seems worth looking into further. Its hidden agenda might be:

- partly wrong
- partly right
- completely wrong
- or completely right

I don't know. But I do find it interesting. Most viewpoints that are out there are at least a partial grasp of the truth. Very few of them are a complete grasp of the truth.

Bush's phony propaganda spin to launch the Iraq War, for example, had a few bits of factual info sprinkled like salt and pepper through a much larger web of innuendo, scaremongering, and outright lies (about nonexistent WMDs and supposed links between Saddam and Al Quaeda). Most hidden agenda messages contain some truth and some falsehood. The challenge is to sort out the one from the other, and that takes time and diligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:28 AM

"Now what about social instability, financial instability, political instability, and climatic instability all across planet Earth?"

Civil wars in any country probably compete for the title. Maybe not 'climatic', though. Climate change probably is incidental to all of the other; however, since it has happened before - a number of times - I imagine that if humans were present at such times climate change created quite a lot of instability.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:34 AM

No doubt. There have clearly been great human migrations caused in the past, due to climate change...and it often caused wars when that happened. We all need tolerable temperatures, food, water, and shelter. All these things become threatened in a time of severe climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Megan L
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:43 AM

as private Fraser would say We're DOOMED

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:57 AM

Obviouisly the beginning of the End Times. The Rupture is on the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 12:04 PM

Earthquakes 8.0 magnitude and above have struck at a record rate since 2004. But the increased rate was not statistically different from what you'd expect from random chance.

from

http://earthsky.org/earth/are-large-earthquakes-increasing-in-frequency

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 12:05 PM

ditto

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 12:42 PM

Getting all apocalyptic, eh Megan and Greg? ;-D Cute clip, Megan.

We're all doomed, in fact! You know how I know this? Well, it works this way...

1. We're mortal.

2. That means we're gonna die!!! (I know this, because I've already seen my parents and a whole bunch of other people die. It happens. It even happened to Napoleon and Liberace and Tallulah Bankhead. It happens to EVERYONE.)

3. Conclusion: we're ALLLLLL doomed! Yup. You and me and everyone we know is gonna die. But we don't know when. AAARGHHH!

So...ummm...whadda we do about that now? I suggest going out today with a big smile on your face, doing something you really enjoy, and having a lovely time. Maybe play some music. Read a good book. Go for a walk in the sun. Play with your dog (if you have one). Be nice to people.

Works for me. ;-) Matter of fact, I'm going out right now to have lunch. Yummy.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 03:41 PM

Guest/12:04, earthsky.org and the US Geological Survey don't agree on that. I tend to believe the scientific fact-finders.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 03:47 PM

Good.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 04:23 PM

Those are all wise observations, Little Hawk. Good job.

I had a thought. Investment advisors often say that if something seems too good to be true, we should be on the qui vive. We don't hear about it, but if something seems to BAD to be true, we should also be on the qui vive.

My thing to do - prune roses today.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 05:04 PM

I think that's a very sensible approach, leeneia. I find that things generally work out somewhere in between the wild extremes of "the very best" and "the absolute worst" possible scenarios.

Well, lunch was great! And now I have song circle to look forward to.

Ebbie - Scientific fact-finders? Yeah, I have a reasonable amount of confidence in those people...up to a point. But they have sometimes proven to be in error, and they have sometimes been found to have been serving a hidden agenda themselves...usually one driven by their political leaders or their bosses or their primary funding sources...or just the general blind spots of their own culture and time. Rigid thinkers and maintain-the-status-quo aficionados are found among scientists too. Thus, although I have great respect for their expertise, I know darned well that they are not infallible nor are they totally dependable. I pay close attention to what they say, but I don't take it as gospel, no more than I would take any other supposedly authoritative source as unquestionable gospel.

I just give them fair consideration, as I would any other authoritative source. Everyone's got their own notions about what is an authoritative source, but that's one hell of a big subject, so I'm not even going to get into it. Not today, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 05:48 PM

Get the data from MANY sources that theoretically have no ax to grind (government agencieS, universitieS, scientific associationS, etc.). Then make up your own mind. You can learn a lot in the process as you strive to understand what you're being told. For example, in researching a fairy tale I discovered that Little Hawk had originally been a frog, but after the Princess looked at what had come from her kiss (besides lip warts) she ran away screaming.

Seriously, use as many sources as you can, whether or not they support your original thesis. Then change your mind if the data shows you're wrong. (People live longer who can change their minds.)

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 06:34 PM

USGS Count the quakes for yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: skarpi
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 06:40 PM

have you thought of man made earthquake ....?? we make little one s
here in Iceland ...., and some people know about something is going on by your Goverment ....or the goverment behind the goverment ??

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 06:58 PM

As 999 points out, we're not talking about opinions here but record keeping. OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 08:18 PM

It's a bit surprising to learn of all of the earthquakes with MAJOR fatalities you never hear anything, or very little, about.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 09:43 PM

Mother Gaea is waking up and becoming irritated at the infestation on her skin. We'd better wise up and change our ways. Otherwise, she will do more than twitch occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 09:51 PM

The Earth is sick of us...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 02:16 PM

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking can cause earthquakes. And God knows since there is lottsa $money$ to be made out of this process more and more of this will be going on.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Megan L
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 02:23 PM

Little Hawk my mother used to say "You aren't dead till you die" Otherwise get of yer bahookie and live cause some day you wont be able to.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 10:38 PM

That is exactly my own philosophy, Megan. ;-) Today I put it into practice by doing several really enjoyable things, the last of which was cooking and eating a roast duck. Didn't eat all of it yet, though. There's lots more for tomorrow.

Ever hear this one?

O, ye cannae spend a dollar when ye're deid,
O, ye cannae spend a dollar when ye're deid
Singin' Ding Dong Dollar; Everybody holler
Ye cannae spend a dollar when ye're deid

Oh the Yanks have juist drapt anchor in Dunoon
An' they've had their civic welcome frae the toon,
As they cam' up the measured mile
Bonnie Mary o' Argyll
Wis wearin' spangled drawers beneath her goun.

An' the publicans will a' be daein' swell
For it's juist the thing that's sure tae ring the bell,
O the dollars they will jingle
There'll be no a lassie single
Even though they maybe blaw us a' tae hell.

But the Glesca Moderator dinnae mind,
In fact, he thinks the Yanks are awfy kind,
For it's heaven that ye're goin'
It's a quicker way than rowin'
An' there's sure to be naebody left behind.

Ye cannae spend a dollar when ye're deid,
Sae tell Kennedy he's got tae keep the heid
Singin' Ding Dong Dollar; Everybody holler
Ye cannae spend a dollar when ye're deid

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 03:12 AM

Most of the apparent increase in large quakes is attributable to more and better ways of detecting and measuring them. It's difficult to conclude whether there's been an unusual increase, or whether it's a "normal" variation - or even if it's a variation.

What is known is that earthquakes can happen anywhere, anytime, and there's no accepted method for predicting them (other than fundamentalist belief and/or voodoo divination). About all that's certain is that eventually there will be an earthquake at almost any point you wish to choose, and some of them will be huge.

Recent "news" articles have pointed out that the disastrous quake in Japan killed "only" about 20,000 people. The potential would have been more than 200,000 had there been no warning, and if the cities worst hit had not had established evacuation plans with known evacuation routes to identified "safe" places, and most of the people followed instructions promptly.

It has been pointed out that fault lines in the vicinity of the US Northwest coast imply a probability of a similar quake/tsunami event "sometime." Oregon and Washington states have no plans, although a few "radicals" have begun suggesting "maybe we oughta think about it some." There has been some progress in building "quake resistant" structures in parts of the area, but no real thought to responses to tsunamis.

In the Seattle area, it's well known that much of the population lives on a "mudslide" plain that was the result of an eruption of a nearby volcano that's been "dormant" for a time but is still considered "active." (The previous mudslide was recent enough to be known within "native lore" of the current tribes in the area.) As seen with the fairly recent eruption of the smaller St Helens, prompt evacuations to safe places are about the only viable escape, and Renton, in the middle of the prior slide, has no plan for resonding to Mt. Ranier. (Maximum warning could be as short as two hours? - plenty of time.)

There are numerous places in the US where a "6P" plan could be of immense help when an expected disaster might happen, but few places where it might be helpful have a plan.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Megan L
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 03:21 AM

Jings lad its many a year since iheard that one it was popular around Springburn when i was a wean.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 10:28 AM

What are you talking about? What does a neighborhood in Glasgow have to do with anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Megan L
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 11:21 AM

My comment was a reply to little Hawk. Are you always so rude?

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 12:42 PM

The main flippin' reason why there are more flippin' earthquakes happenin' is becoz of women!

Yeah, you hearn me right, eh? Women are to blame. And I will tell you why.

It is a known fact that when a woman experiences, like, real powerful orgazisms that it can cause major earth tremmors. Everybody knows that...it is a known fact, and I ain't boastin', but I have SEEN it!

So...the thing is that back in the older tradishonal days the women were, like, sorta more strate-laiced than now and they were not havin' near as much sex as they do NOW! Things are gettin' WAY outta hand lately with all the internet porn and stuff that is avaylable to women as well as men.

Trust me on this. I been lookin' through a lotta windows late at night in this town (doin' reseerch for a book that I plan to right soon) and there is a lotta, like, necturnal activity happenin' out there that would curl yer hair! The girls these days got no flippin' shame at all, eh? They are, like, usin' vegetables...machines...youse would not flippin' bee-LEEV the things I have seen, eh? How are us men supposeta deal with this sichuation?

So...when ya got millions of these here young women that are engagin' in them kinda solidary activities on a flippin' nightly bases it can cause fault lines to, like, bust wide open! The hole flippin' west coast is in dyre perril becoz of this, coz the Vancouver and California girls are the absolute flippin' WORST!

Somethin' has got to be done about it.

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 01:40 PM

High, Megan. Hope things are going well.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 01:45 PM

If you was high on the stuff I got here, man, you would be flyin'! Only 25 bucks a baggie, and no twigs. Ya can't beat that.

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Megan L
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 01:45 PM

Hello my friend How are you doing these days the world keeps turning and i keep moving :)

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 01:52 PM

I'll message you, Meg.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Megan L
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 01:57 PM

Shane when that man said he would sell you grass that was exactly what he meant :)

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 02:24 PM

(chuckle)

Actually, Megan, I think Shane grows his own. It's the one thing he really knows how to do, other than breaking and entering...and air guitar, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 10:56 PM

Nothing is going on that has not gone on just this way for millions of years.
The Earth's magnetic field fluctuates (and this has been directly tracked sine the 1400s, and there is archaeological evidence going back thousands more years, and seafloor stripes going back 200 million years).
The magnetic field is definitely in decline - this has been knwon for hundreds of years.
It is probably heading into another reversal (this happens every few hundred thousand years).
Again - nothing new.
Some small earthquakes are definitely related to fracking, but Sendai was natural, Aceh was natural, Concepsion was natural...all the big ones were natural...
Nothing here to spend any time worrying about or arguing.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 11:21 PM

Tia, Little Hawk's suggestion is that the planet may well turn topsy turvey- is that what you are agreeing with? That the earthwill overbalance and in a short period of time, will turn end for end, that the North Pole and the Arctic will replace the South Pole in the Antarctic and that North America will become South America? That the United Kingdom will be in the southern hemisphere and all of Australia will be found in the northern?

I don' think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 10:26 AM

thanks, TIA.

It seems that once a week I hear the word "fracking," uttered in a frightened way by a person who doesn't know anything about it.

Remember the Y2K scare? How all our systems were going to collapse on 1/1/2000? Then the big day came and nothing happened.

Fracking fear is just the new Y2K.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 10:31 AM

No no no. A magnetic pole reversal (happens all the time) does not involve a geographic pole reversal (impossible).

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 10:41 AM

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 12:29 PM

Ebbie, I wasn't suggesting that the world would turn "end for end". I was not suggesting a complete 180 degree reversal. What I was suggesting (merely a hypothesis that I've done some reading about...not saying I'm certain about it happening)...is that the planet may do a partial shift to a new position on its axis, and that this may occur at fairly regular intervals of between 20,000 and 25,000 years.

Such a shift would cause perhaps a 20 or 30 or 40 degree shift in the position of the planet relative to the axis of rotation. So, for example, the north pole could shift north to the center of Siberia, for example...or southeast to central Ontaro, for example...or in some other direction.

There appears to presently be a gradual drift occuring that is moving us (North America) in a SSE direction, which means that the North Pole is drifting NNW toward central Russia.

If such a shift were gradual...say over a period of a few years...it would certainly cause radical changes in weather patterns, melting of ice caps, extensive fooding, and it would probably cause much geological instability, confusion in animal migratory patterns, earthquakes, etc.

If such a shift were sudden (a few days or even less time than that) it would cause absolutely massive devastation on the planet.

I am not predicting this. I'm merely discussing a theory that I've read quite a bit about lately. I don't know if that theory is correct. For me to say categorically that it is would be a statement of pure faith...since I don't know for sure.

For someone else to say categorically that it ISN'T would also be a statement of pure faith! They also don't know for sure.

Such statements of pure faith come up from numerous conventional-minded people any time one mentions anything unusual to them, and I find that amusing, because I wonder how on Earth people can be that sure of something they have no way of actually knowing to any point of certainty.

Yes, magnetic pole reversals have happened many times in the past. It would be interesting to know why. Significant physical shifts in the axis of rotation may also have happened at certain times in the past. If so, it would be interesting to know why.

The Mayan prediction may have to do with the ending of a great geological age, relating to pole shift. Or it may not. I can't say, because I don't know. And I have no way of knowing for certain. Nor does anyone else here.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 01:44 PM

I think you may be referring to the precession of the equinoxes, which is due to the way the Earth spins, like a gyroscope. Ignoring the rest of the stuff, and especially the way the gyroscope stops spinning which the Earth will not be doing any time soon, the part of this video at about 1.28 min shows how the gyroscope top describes a circle in the air. So the Earth's axis describes a circle against the stars over about 26,000 years. It will be moving away from pointing at Polaris, and won't get back for that time. This is a steady process, as smooth as the gyroscope before it slows.

Axial wobble

In addition, at the same time, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and right angles to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) swings between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing. Again, this is a steady process.

We are lucky in having the Moon, as, if it were not there exerting a gravitational pull on us, this swing would be much greater, chaotic, and not friendly to life.

But these long term changes are not going to cause any sudden catastrophes.

The Mayan calendar, by the way, simply records a number of multiples of Venus and other astronomical cycles. Venus and Earth have a resonant link so that in 584 days, Venus returns to the same relationship between Earth and the Sun. 5 of these periods add to 2920, while 8 Earth years (ignoring the odd quarter) adds to 2920. Clearly, by ignoring the quarter and the real length of the 584 day period, the resonance is going to get out of sync, which the Mayans spotted, but had not resolved by the time of the Conquistadors. There are further resonances involving the Moon, and the long period ending this year, when a new period starts is based on the working out of these patterns. They happen in the sky, not on Earth, although, since the Maya related Venus to war, particular parts of the cycles could have been seen as times when war was propitious, and so disastrous for neighbours.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: radriano
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 02:23 PM

I work for the California Geological Survey. Our office is at the U.S. Geological Survey's Menlo Park campus.

Freqency of earthquakes has not altered much. There are continual predictions of upcoming earthquakes by many groups. So far they have all proved wrong. The reality is that a major earthquake will occur at some point. There is no scientific way to predict earthquakes. The best thing is to be as prepared as you can be.

For more information on earthquakes in California, here are links to both the U.S. Geological Survey and the California Geological Survey:

USGS Earthquakes Hazards Program

California Geological Survey

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 05:47 PM

Thanks, guys. More information is good.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 09:29 PM

Neither the magnetic poles nor the rotational (geographic) poles move in a fashion that should be called a "shift" - implying a discrete event. The magnetic poles "drift", their intensity rises and falls, and sometimes when the field intensity declines to zero, the poles gradually re-emerge with reversed polarity. As Penny says, the rotational (geographic) poles precess, but again this is gradual. the geographic and magnetic poles cannot get too far apart since the magnetic field is produced by eddy currents (vortices) in the liquid outer core due to the slight differential rotation rates of the solid crust/mantle and the solid inner core (separated by the liquid outer core). These vortices are necessarily aligned sub-parallel to the rotational axis, so the mangetic field must also be sub-aprallel to the rotation.
No worries folks. Uniformitarianism prevails.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 09:31 PM

...that is until the next city-buster (or larger) extraterrestrial impact! But, it turns out that these catastrophic events are themselves uniformitarion. Imagine that - uniformitarian catastrophism.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 01:00 AM

"uniformatarianism"?

That sounds sort of like some kind of orthodox religion. :-) And it might just be.

Is it the idea that all such changes must necessarily be gradual and occur only in small increments over a very long time?

If so, it is an idea that will always appear rock solid and dependable right up until something happens that isn't gradual...after which all bets are off, and people may be too busy for awhile just surviving to even bother about theories.

But my own hope is that you are correct, and we manage to dodge any major catastrophic event while we are living out the rest of our lives here.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 01:26 AM

By the way, what is your theory as to what causes the Earth's magnetic field? Or to put it another way, what generates that field? You indicate that it is generated by the movement of the liquid outer core around the solid inner core. I think that is probably correct.

We can generate a similar flux field in our electronic devices by rotating an armature.

So...why would the Earth's magnetic field decline radically? Or strengthen radically? And why would it reverse itself?

The only way I know of that you can reverse the polarity of such a field in one of our electronic machines is to reverse the direction of rotation of the armature.

Think about that for a minute or two. A reversal of the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field seems to suggest that the planet would need to rotate in the opposite direction!

And a number of ancient myths and symbolic tales speak of events occurring where a day lasted about 3 normal days...or a night lasted 3 normal nights...after which the sun rose from the opposite horizon and days and nights went back to a normal length. That would happen if the planet stopped rotating for 3 days, then began rotating in the opposite direction. And if that happened, I don't doubt that the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field would reverse itself!

It's one more of a number of interesting possibilities regarding the behaviour of our planet, and it is suggested by a whole bunch of ancient tales that have come down from very old sources in different parts of the world.

If there were quite lengthy periods of stability between those widely separated catastrophic events...periods of many thousands of years...then it wouldn't be the least bit surprising that people would soon get used to the idea that "things only change very gradually"...because that would be the only thing they'd ever personally witnessed or had recent accounts of . And they would soon think that tales of catastrophic change in the distant past were nothing more than "mythology", wouldn't they?

Nothing sticks in people's heads like the familiar status quo. Until it changes.

I bet it would take only about 10 (or less) generations for people to pooh-pooh and doubt stories that were passed on about a global catastrophe that their ancestors had lived through. Like the farmer who had never seen a giraffe, they'd say: "No way. I've never seen anything like that, and no one would be so foolish as to believe anything like that." Thus does the conventional mind automatically reject anything that lies well outside its common set of assumptions...rather as a conventional religion automatically rejects anything that lies outside its established dogma.

The reaction is the same in both cases....strict adherence to familiar and accepted dogma.

Sometimes something happens that completely overturns an accepted dogma...whether in religion OR in science. And when it does, people are very surprised and very disturbed about it. But they still have to deal with it anyway, because it's reality, and their dogma is just a set of familiar ideas they're grown up with and taken for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 06:59 AM

Uniformitarianism is the idea that what happened in the geological past can be explained by processes which can be observed in the present. Including, of course, catastrophes such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and, heaven preserve us, impacts, and changes such as the Moon's moving further away, and slowing the Earth's rotation.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 09:11 AM

Ah. Thanks!

My first proposition with all this kind of stuff is to admit that I don't know....and I can't be absolutely sure about any given hypothesis. Then I give some consideration to a great many hypotheses that have come down from conventional science, radical views that differ from conventional science, ancient myths and tales (specially those from many different cultures that have common features!), alternative viewpoints of all kinds.

I consider them all.

The conventional mind (which describes about 98% of the public at any given time) doesn't do that. The conventional mind simply accepts the most prevalent conventional viewpoint....thinks it DOES know for sure...and stops investigating right there and then, smug in its certainty that it already HAS the answers.

And that is precisely what I object to in conventional thinking. It figures it already has pretty well all the answers that matter, and looks no further.

You find that in both religion and secular life (including the most ardent atheistic viewpoints).

It is mental rigidity and refusal to fairly consider alternative viewpoints that I object to. They assume a certainty which they should not assume...because, like me, they really don't know for sure.

I admit I don't know. I just wonder. And I continue looking. The conventional mind assumes it does know about most stuff, and scoffs at any opinion other than its own. And there is the difference.

I'm very curious about Earth change theories of all sorts, and would like to continue investigating them. I have no way of being absolutely sure which of them (if any) is correct...or to what degree. But I like to stay open to the possibilities. Uncertainty does not frighten me, so I don't need to cling to established orthodoxies to feel "safe", and I think that's exactly what the average conventional mind is really doing (though it would never admit to it). It's staying "safe" in its little mental box of supposed certainty...a box which was foisted upon it by parents, schools, teachers, priests, science authorities, political authorities, medical authorities, its peer group...all those busy voices around you that whisper in your ear constantly from the time you're old enough to walk and tell you, "This is the way it is, and that's all there is to it."

They are so often wrong! And if you're truly a free thinker, you find that out for yourself in due course of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 11:17 AM

"...a day lasted about 3 normal days...or a night lasted 3 normal nights...after which the sun rose from the opposite horizon and days and nights went back to a normal length. That would happen if the planet stopped rotating for 3 days, then began rotating in the opposite direction"

sheesh Reminds me of a time when my brother came bolting down the stairs, white with fear, saying that his heart had stopped.

Methinks that if Earth stopped from its current 1000+ miles per hour, there would be repercussions beyond just noting that one day had become three days long.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 12:44 PM

Not necessarily. Stop and think about the various possibilities instead of giving it the old instant reaction, Ebbie.

It depends on how fast the planet stops rotating.

Example: If you are in a Porsche that is traveling 100 miles per hour, and it stops instantly....as when it hits a brick wall that is 10 feet thick....the car is pulverized and so are you. You die.

If, however the car is stopped in merely a few seconds by the driver vigorously applying the brakes and doing a controlled skid to make a safe stop....then both you and the car manage fine and are not injured, though it will lose a bit of rubber off its tires.

The difference? Deceleration. Deceleration takes a period of time...not very long in most cases...but a definite measureable period of time is required for deceleration to prevent destruction.

A vehicle traveling 1,000 miles per hour (as some of our aircraft can easily do) can also be decelerated (as it moves from flight to landing) in a reasonably short period of time from 1,000 mph to zero mph without it or its occupants suffering any injury.

So....why the heck are you assuming that a planet that stops its rotation must do so instantly? If it took a few minutes to stop its rotation, that would be a gradual enough deceleration to prevent physical catastrophes on land, I should think, but it would probably result in some powerful tsunamis, and those would cause destruction on land.

If it took an hour or two to decelerate its rotation to zero, then I doubt anyone would even notice it was happening until they noticed that the sun was not moving across the sky in its usual gradual fashion...or that the dawn was not coming as soon as it usually does.

It's all a question of rate of the rate of deceleration.

I can't figure how the heck you would imagine that I am proposing a theory which suggests that a whole planet can stop its rotation instantly. ;-D If it did, I expect that it would tear the entire planet apart, explode it, and utterly destroy it....just like what would happen if you stopped a jet plane instantly in its 1,000 mph flight path.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 02:50 PM

I think it would need a lot more than a few hours.

And you need a mechanism to cause it.

And then a mechanism to spin it up again.

Earth's mass is 5.9742 X 10 superscript 24 kg, so it would need a force of 5.9742 X 10 superscript 24 newtons to accelerate it through 1 meter per second squared. Unfortunately, my physics studies have not extended to rotational forces, but even so, I can see that to end the current speed at the equator of 1670 kilometers/hour requires a huge force, from something equivalent to the size of the Earth itself.

Have you ever grabbed a toy gyroscope and tried to stop it?

Scale that up.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 03:09 PM

Or swing a bathtub full of water... There's a whole lot more water on earth than there is land.



My goo'ness. What's going on? It's been more than two days and nights and it's still light out there. Have you noticed? I wonder what the explanation could possibly be?

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 03:25 PM

Actually, that's only the surface - there's a lot more rock underneath. And iron.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 03:41 PM

When the water above the rock and iron is more than two miles deep, I should think that the fact that it's relatively shallow wouldn't make much difference. After all, even a bathtub is solid some distance below the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 04:01 PM

Hmmm. Looks like my last reply to Penny vanished into cyberspace.

(sigh)

I should have copied it before I hit "submit".

My main point was that any vehicle traveling 1,000 miles an hour (a planet included) can steadily decelerate to zero in quite a short time without injuring itself or its passengers. This is amply demostrated by our modern aircraft...or by various other machines we have.

The point is, you have to decelerate or accelerate very smoothly in order to prevent major shocks and damage to the vehicle and the passengers.

This is just as true of a very large vehicle as it is of a small vehicle. It is sudden and abrupt changes in velocity which hurt you (through inertial forces)...not steady acceleration or deceleration.

An earthquake is a sudden shock. So is a car crash. Both are very damaging, as we well know. A slowing of planetary rotation would not be very damaging if it were to take place smoothly over, say, an hour. I doubt that it would even cause very significant tsunamis...but a sudden shock like an earthquake CAN do so.

And, Ebbie, I am not predicting that we are about to experience this. I have no way of knowing that or supposing it. I am merely suggesting a possible theory which would help explain some ancient legends about the sun pausing in its march across the sky for 3 days...and about longer than usual periods of night (again, a duration of about 3 days). Such legends exist in many parts of the world. I don't think they just burst forth out of nowhere. I think they are a link to something that really happened in the remote past.

This does not equate to me predicting that it's going to happen next week or next year. ;-) Okay? I have no idea when or if it will happen in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 04:12 PM

Regarding the crust of the Earth. Yes, it's thicker than the oceans are deep...but it's not very thick in comparison to the vast size of the planet. It's a really thin skin over a molten body with an iron core. And the oceans are a thinner puddle on top of that thin skin.

One thing about the ancients in the thousands of years prior to our development of electricty...they were FAR more aware of the sky, the constellations, and the other things in the night sky than most people are nowadays. Their skies were unpolluted by the vast array of lights that we now have, thus far more visible to the naked eye.

The ancients paid much more attention to the stars, the comets, the constellations, the sun, and the moon than modern people do, and they studied them. They measured the cycles of the sky in order to better understand the seasons, grow their crops, etc. They tied much of their religious understanding to the visible phenomena in the sky.

I think you would find that our present civilization (with the exception of a few scientists and hobbyists) is woefully ignorant of the night sky when compared to people in a great many ancient societies. We are lost in our technology and our artificial lifestyle, and have largely lost our sensitivity to the cycles of Nature. This is one of the things that imperils our civilization, as it is obsessed with what its technology can do, but has greatly lost its sense of intimacy with the natural cycles.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 04:15 PM

The radius of the Earth is 6,378 km. The deepest part of the ocean is 11 km, but most of it is about 5 km deep. There is much, much more lithosphere, mantle and core than there is water. The density of the stuff is much greater than that of water.

Iona in the YEC thread has the problem of visualising scale - I do, too, it isn't easy, but I know it isn't.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 10:33 PM

Am I really the only reader here who thinks that the concept that Little Hawk outlines is preposterous?

Surely, shirley, when a large body comes to a halt there are all kinds of physical repercussions to its surface, and for that matter, its innards? To think otherwise strikes me as farcical.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 11:36 PM

I think there would be some repercussions, yes. But they would depend on how slowly the deceleration process took place...and how long it lasted at the point of stasis. If it lasted too long, then the sunny side of the planet would get damn hot, and the dark side would get very cold, and that would probably be fatal to most lifeforms. Further to that, the period of commencing rotation again would also be crucial...as to how long it took and how fast it happened.

But...it's simply a theory, Ebbie, based on a number of ancient legends about some very unusual event.

People have thought that a lot of things were "preposterous", simply because they hadn't happened yet. That's the way people think about stuff that strikes them as highly unusual...such as...

atomic bombs
continental drift
airplanes
Freudian psychology
giving women the vote!
letting women wear trousers!
open heart surgery
telephone, radio, and telegraph
X-rays
travel to the moon and back

All of the above would have been considered preposterous by plenty of perfectly sensible and normal people in rather recent historical eras...simply because they'd never heard of anything like that before.

"That's ridiculous! Preposterous! Are you mad to suggest that women should wear trousers and vote equally alongside men? And you think that men will someday go to the moon? Are you taking leave of your senses? Have you lost your mind???" ;-)

That's the usual way people react to anything they've never even considered before. They think it's preposterous. So...welcome to the ranks of the conventional mind, Ebbie, cos you have a lot of company.

I'm not saying it DID happen. I'm saying it might have happened. We have no way of being sure about that one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Penny S.
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 03:31 AM

Actually, we do have ways of being sure, the same ways that counter, for most people, the world-wide flood. Things that happen to the Earth leave traces in the geological record. And there aren't any. And if in periods when traditions could record them, in histories such as those of the Chinese, which go back a long way, and are very careful to be accurate. Again, nothing.

It isn't a theory - theories are things which can be, and have been, tested and are supported by evidence. It may be a hypothesis, but probably not, as those need to be based on observations.

And it needs a mechanism, a way in whch it could be done. It was the absence of a mechanism whch led to the delays in accepting continental drift/plate tectonics so long. The mechanism needs to take account of the size of the objects and forces involved.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 01:16 PM

The mechanism in the case of a stoppage in rotation and a reversal of rotation, Penny, would most likely be an "off-Earth" mechanism...that is, very large gravitational factors emanating from other large objects in space....conjunction of various gravitational forces at cyclical intervals in the Solar System...or beyond the Solar System, in the Milky Way Galaxy. I've read some interesting theories about that. If so, we are not in a position to examine the evidence, because we don't have access to it, aside from our usual observations of the sky through telescopes and satellites.

If it's something that only happens at very widely separated intervals, there may BE no visible evidence suggesting it at this time.

It is likely that some of our planets were once not yet established in their present predictable orbits, but were "wanderers". Velikovsky wrote some very interesting stuff about that in "Worlds In Collision". He suggested that Venus had once made a fairly close pass to Earth, causing much devastation here, before it (Venus) settled into its present orbit.

I imagine an event like that could have significant effects on this planet's rotation...and other such events may have occurred at various times with bodies other than Venus.

We have no way of securing evidence about it, do we?

As for evidence of the Great Flood, there may be more of that than you think, but our concept of it may be quite primitive. It may not have happened in a period of days...or everywhere at the same time...but it may have been an extended period of unusually heavy rainfall and much flooding of different large areas over hundreds or thousands of years...due to various changes in the Earth's atmosphere, and changes in climate patterns. The flood myths have probably greatly simplified the actual event by localizing it and putting it in simple, symbolic metaphor rather than a literal description of what occurred.

Are you aware that the soft sandstone sides of the Sphinx show definite evidence of extensive water erosion caused over a lengthy period of time by either torrential rains or surface flooding or both? North Africa was fertile than, and there was a lot of rain falling there.

The Sphinx is almost certainly tremendously older than conventional Egyptologists are willing to admit. It's probably at least 20,000 years old. It predates the known Egyptian civilization, and was probably built by a previous civilization that we know nothing about. The Egyptians, in effect, adopted it and probably resculptured its head into a slightly smaller human head (of a Pharaoh) at some point. The original head may well have been that of a lion. It looked directly toward the sunrise.

Like most people in any historical period, almost all of us think that our present scientific and authoritative community have "the answers". As in all previous periods, I think they are in fact dealing to a great extent with their own mythological notions about the past, and their own gross misinterpretations of it which they simply take for granted and wouldn't dream of questioning.

They aren't, in my opinion, nearly as well-informed as they think they are. Nor are any of us. Me included.

There's a simply TREMENDOUS amount of stuff about the past that we are all either starkly ignorant of...or quite mistaken about. But most people don't see it that way. They think they already know the score! ;-) And they think Big Brother has told them the truth all their lives, but Big Brother is not playing with a full deck of cards, and never has been, and probably never will. Big Brother is just a consortium of other impressionable people like ourselves! ;-)

I apply a healthy dose of skepticism to the most common assumptions about most things, and I consider all the alternatives. I admit that I have no way of knowing for sure about any of them, but I keep looking into it. Why? Because I'm curious, and I'd like to know. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 01:28 PM

Any, yes, I just screwed up the italics codes again... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 02:27 PM

Well, we're Frucking Fracking the Hell out of the planet, so I guess Mother Earth is ROARING her discontent and telling us She's more than little pissed off....

Yesterday I read that some Frackers in Pennsylvannia remove NINE MILLION GALLONS of water from a local river, PER DAY, to use in their three Wells. Between 40% and 70% of this water is NEVER seen again, blasted deep into the earth....or it is so polluted as to cause terrible problems for the environment, animals, insects and people....

"And nobody seems to notice, and nobody seems to care...." - George Carlin

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 03:08 PM

Gee... I wish I had kept up with this thread. It has gone in interesting directions.

Haven't read all the posts. Did anyone mention that at zero revolutions of the earth we would all be flattened to squat by gravity?

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 03:44 PM

Such a worry wart, gnu!

Subject: RE: BS: Increasing frequency of earthquakes
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 04:48 PM

The earth is a rotating object.

The earth's total angular momentum is fixed, unless there is a significant interaction with some external system.

There are no external systems close enough to produce the kinds of forces necessary for changes of the kind proposed.

The earth has a fairly solid mantle, but under that there is a liquid layer, apparently mostly iron. There is also a pretty trivial gas layer outside, called the atmosphere.

Under the liquid layer, there's another core that's pretty much the same stuff as the liquid layer, but acts like a solid due to the extreme compression due to gravity (and the weight of all the crap on top of it).

The earth would have a fixed rotational speed if all the parts rotated together, but the liquid layer can have "eddy's" and whirlpools and the like in it. If the liquid changes direction, the "solid" parts must make an opposite change in order to maintain the fixed total angular momentum. If the liquid speeds up (unlikely, except locally) the rest of the system must slow down. If the liquid slows down, the rest speeds up.

If the liquid layer changes direction, as a uniform change or by "prevailing flows" in deviant currents, it's angular momentum in the direction that everything else is going is changed, so everything else has to change.

The magnetic field is produced by the motion of "conducting parts" of the system, and if everything moved together, the magnetic poles would be exactly coincident with the geometric poles of the axis of rotation. The "declination" (the distance between the pole of rotation and the magnetic poles) indicates that the net rotation of "something inside" (assumed to be the liquid layer) is not precisely in the same circles as the rest of the globs.

If part of the system doesn't rotate in perfect alignment with the net axis of the total angular momentum, then the other parts of the system must rotate on an axis that also is not quite coincident with the axis of the total angular momentum. Mr. Coriolis has explained how this will probably cause a "nutation" of the axis of rotation of whichever part you happen to be attached to. This nutation of the geometrical axis of rotation of the solid crust of the earth has been fairly accurately measured and future squirrely behavior can be predicted with "approximate accuracy."

The parts not going with the flow can be disturbed and can change direction, which causes the declination to change - and the magnetic poles to move. Causes for such changes are only vaguely known, but you can visualize them as "somebody dropped a turd in the tub."

A reasonable understanding of how all the various wiggles play together requires combinations of Newtonian Mechanics, fluid dynamics, and magnetohydrodynamics, along with a fair bit of conventional electrodynamics with only a small touch of quantum electrodynamics and plasma physics. The expert on the subject is (was?) perhaps the Indian Astrodynamacist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, who made it all seem quite simple. Most of his work, however, was about 50 years ago and I don't know if he's still accepting questions from the audience.

John