Science
20 Mar 11
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KostenuikNumber 12 is on the top 10 now? Impressive. How low will you continue to go?
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php
1960's
16. Kuril Islands 1963 10 13 8.5
8. Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 02 04 8.7
2. Prince William Sound, Alaska 1964 03 28 9.2
1. Chile 1960 05 22 9.5
1970's
None
1980's
None
1990's
None
2000'
12. Southern Sumatra, Indonesia 2007 09 12 8.5
9. Nor ...[text shortened]... was right and you were wrong and now 20,000+ people are dead cause you are an ignorant. 😳.
Are you going to address the links where the same website says that the claim that large earthquakes are more common is a myth? Without discrediting the very data you use, of course.
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaAgain ignorant this isn't the data I'm concerned with. I never said 7.0 or greater increase but the largest of earthquakes.
"A: Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years."
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=110
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaNow you complain about the link? What next?
Number 12 is on the top 10 now? Impressive. How low will you continue to go?
Are you going to address the links where the same website says that the claim that large earthquakes are more common is a myth? Without discrediting the very data you use, of course.
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by KostenuikYou made claims about Earth being "unstable", yet that doesn't show up in data for large earthquakes. This is evidence that basing your argument on the top 10 (which by definition are outliers AND an incredibly small sample) is very, very likely to be faulty.
Again ignorant this isn't the data I'm concerned with. I never said 7.0 or greater increase but the largest of earthquakes.
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaKeep harping on about 7 plus earthquakes. That isn't what I said but that is a habit of yours isn't it making claims that other people make based on the thoughts that pop into your ignorant head. Face the fact... by my claims Japan was fully predictable but by your statistical nonesense 20,000+ people died cause so many people are ignorant like you.
You made claims about Earth being "unstable", yet that doesn't show up in data for large earthquakes. This is evidence that basing your argument on the top 10 (which by definition are outliers AND an incredibly small sample) is very, very likely to be faulty.
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Ill repost it just for you seeing a variance of six earthquakes is too much for your brain to handle. I can accept a variance of 6 earthquakes but not 1000's as you keep saying for 7+ earthquakes.
1960's
8. Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 02 04 8.7
2. Prince William Sound, Alaska 1964 03 28 9.2
1. Chile 1960 05 22 9.5
1970's
None
1980's
None
1990's
None
2000'
9. Northern Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 03 28 8.6
6. Offshore Maule, Chile 2010 02 27 8.8
4. Near the East Coast of Honshu, Japan 2011 03 11 9.0
3. Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004 12 26 9.1
See that ignorant. 1 large aftershock/delayed earthquake in Japan and half of all earthquakes in reputable earthquake data for the top ten will have occured in less then the last 7 seven years.
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by KostenuikIt's not my statistical nonsense, it's the analysis of the United States Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program.
Keep harping on about 7 plus earthquakes. That isn't what I said but that is a habit of yours isn't it making claims that other people make based on the thoughts that pop into your ignorant head. Face the fact... by my claims Japan was fully predictable but by your statistical nonesense 20,000+ people died cause so many people are ignorant like you.
26 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by KostenuikWe all have seen that a million times. Do you think reposting it will convince anyone that these are not outliers that shouldn't be over-interpreted?
Ill repost it just for you seeing a variance of six earthquakes is too mjuch for your brain to handle.
" I can accept a variance of 6 earthquakes but not 1000's as you keep saying for 7+ earthquakes. "
This is just gibberish.
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYes it is statistical nonsense as you are trying to disprove what I am stating by using irrelavent data to what I claim.
It's not my statistical nonsense, it's the analysis of the United States Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program.
Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude; as an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the magnitude scale corresponds to the release of about 31 times more energy than the amount associated with the preceding whole number value
Read more: The Severity of an Earthquake — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763386.html#ixzz1Kdwjq37n