8.9 Quake & Tsunami in JApan.

[perry]

The charts put out by USGS are significant .. Just go back to the 1980's and count the number of severe earthquakes back then compared to now... Shit

Bottom line, since 2000, the number of earthquakes that are large and destructive, has increased in a huge way... We are talking two screen fulls of earthquakes in 2009, compared to just a couple of earthquakes all year long in the 80's.
Please click on the link and compare data from the last 50 years .
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical.php

 

[pauper]

The charts put out by USGS are great.. Just go back to the 1980's and count the number of severe earthquakes back then compared to now... Shit

Bottom line, since 2000, the number of earthquakes that are large and destructive, has increased in a huge way... We are talking two screen fulls of earthquakes in 2009, compared to just a couple of earthquakes all year long in the 80's.
Please click on the link and compare data from the last 50 years .
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical.php

I don't understand why you are going back to this data again. This error has already been pointed out to you, there is a link on this thread that goes to a previous thread where you began with this 500% increase theory using the same data. The data is of 'Selected earthquakes of general historic interest' - not anything near the complete data set (which esllou and others have posted here and taken numbers from) it does articulate quite well the effect of greater media coverage, greater amounts of media (cell phone cameras etc) and reduced times for this information to go around the world which makes these events all the more shocking as we see them as they are happening (thus they have a greater likelihood of becoming 'of historical interest').

Do you understand now why this data is incomplete and therefore invalid to be used in this argument?

 

[perry]

I don't understand why you are going back to this data again. This error has already been pointed out to you, there is a link on this thread that goes to a previous thread where you began with this 500% increase theory using the same data. The data is of 'Selected earthquakes of general historic interest' - not anything near the complete data set (which esllou and others have posted here and taken numbers from) it does articulate quite well the effect of greater media coverage, greater amounts of media (cell phone cameras etc) and reduced times for this information to go around the world which makes these events all the more shocking as we see them as they are happening (thus they have a greater likelihood of becoming 'of historical interest').

Do you understand now why this data is incomplete and therefore invalid to be used in this argument?

Are you trying to say that the events of the last years are a regular part of life on the planet as we know it?

The argument you mention is ludicruous about media coverage as since the 1950s we have had excellent technology to record earthquakes and weather events ( hurricanes, heat waves etc etc)

The last 10 years have been unusual and of late the weather events of calamitous proportions are increasing at a dramatic rate. This is not usual nor is it a everyday occurence as you put it.

Next year( 2012) Pauper lets revisit this topic again . Thank you

 

[pauper]

Are you trying to say that the events of the last years are a regular part of life on the planet as we know it?

The argument you mention is ludicruous about media coverage as since the 1950s we have had excellent technology to record earthquakes and weather events ( hurricanes, heat waves etc etc)

The last 10 years have been unusual and of late the weather events of calamitous proportions are increasing at a dramatic rate. This is not usual nor is it a everyday occurence as you put it.

Next year( 2012) Pauper lets revisit this topic again . Thank you

No, let's revisit it now. I asked you a question, do you or do you not understand why that data is incomplete and therefore invalid to be used as evidence supporting your premise that there has been an enormous increase in earthquakes in recent years? The error has been pointed out to you numerous times but as with anything that scuppers your premise you ignore it. As this is the only data you have actually provided to support your argument you are back at square one (and no, 'all the people I talk to agree' is not scientific data only proof that the enlightenment has a long way to go) provide data or concede the premise.

 

[perry]

No, let's revisit it now. I asked you a question, do you or do you not understand why that data is incomplete and therefore invalid to be used as evidence supporting your premise that there has been an enormous increase in earthquakes in recent years? The error has been pointed out to you numerous times but as with anything that scuppers your premise you ignore it. As this is the only data you have actually provided to support your argument you are back at square one (and no, 'all the people I talk to agree' is not scientific data only proof that the enlightenment has a long way to go) provide data or concede the premise.

You have not answered my questions and have made an effort to avoid answering my questions using the classic lame duck response of Conspiracy theorist and other low intelligence comments.

No I do not believe in the Maya calendar but am aware that events are leading up to 2012 in a dramatic fashion and weather events of great magnitude are rapidly increasing. It does not take rocket science to see that the world is new phase that can change our lives as we know today.

To those who disagree fine but let us give others the fundamental human right of respecting a different opinion. Thank you

 

[fifs2]

Whilst I can see both your points of view guys do you think this egotistical, Im right youre wrong, has any place on a thread discussing such a horrible human tragedy? I have my own theories and opinions but don`t think they are worth anything in the face of the reality of this situation..it is more likely ego will be the death of mankind than any natural disaster...

 

[perry]

Whilst I can see both your points of view guys do you think this egotistical, Im right youre wrong, has any place on a thread discussing such a horrible human tragedy? I have my own theories and opinions but don`t think they are worth anything in the face of the reality of this situation..it is more likely ego will be the death of mankind than any natural disaster...

Good post and my intention were only to express an opinion of a topic that has concerned me very much of late.

Unfortunately people like Pauper cannot accept a different opinion and his automatic replies to every post I do seem tantamount to stalking !!!!

 

[fifs2]

Good post and my intention were only to express an opinion of a topic that has concerned me very much of late.

Unfortunately people like Pauper cannot accept a different opinion and his automatic replies to every post I do seem tantamount to stalking !!!!

Sorry for preaching Perry..on any given day I`ll join the 2012 increasing natural disasters in a heartbeat (had the same discussion with friends in the park today) but it`s important in writing to remember how we all watched lives being wiped out in seconds, live on TV on Friday and how totally unimportant we all are, not to mention our opinions. Disasteers should used to bring the world together...

 

[redrum]

i've posted this before in another thread but i think it's worth repeating.

without having to look at charts or graphs, i don't think there's any question that natural disasters have been on the rise as of late. perhaps it's more media attention however i cannot remember a time when we've seen as many high impact disasters as we have the past several years.

when viewed within the context of the past 10 years, it appears to be a high number. when viewed within the context of the earth's age, perhaps not that many.

could it be the super moon? some claim that weather manipulation may be involved; that a military weapon in alaska called HAARP could be used to change/manipulate the weather. the jury is still out. but let's just say it's not outside the realm of plausibility. there is incredible power in frequencies.

weather manipulation and weather warfare is nothing new. the US and russia have been trying to control weather and use it as a weapon since the cold war. at the heart of it all is the work of genius nikola tesla.

the fact that globalist, elitist bill gates would submit a patent application for technology to control hurricanes doesn't ring as a pure coincidence to me.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-28/...iam-gray-storm-patent-applications?_s=PM:TECH

 

[Ries]

I like that way of thinking-
If we ignore the actual facts, we can say whatever we want...

Anyway, here are two stories about two HUGE tsunamis that are not on the USGS charts, as they took place too long ago-

The mysterious "orphan tsunami", which hit Japan in 1700, which was caused by a massive earthquake off the Washington/BC coast-
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1707/

And another possible "Atlantis"- a large city in southern Spain that was wiped out by a tsunami 2500 or so years ago.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-tsunami-atlantis-idUSTRE72B2JR20110312
It turns out that southern Spain, historically, has been hit by a LOT of tsunamis.
A giant one in 1755 nearly wiped out Lisbon.'

Crescent City California has been hit by 31 tsunamis since 1933 alone- they are a lot less rare than some would have you believe.
http://www.slate.com/id/2288020/
If there have been 31 in the last 80 years, there must have been thousands over time just hitting that one town.