Science
20 Mar 11
26 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaThat depends on what you accept as scientific data. 😞.
You also have the choice of engaging politely in conversation or surreptitiously calling me an ignorant. All while you agree with me on the data, which means that your claim that "half the earthquakes in the top10 of all recorded history will have happened in the last 7 years" is proven wrong.
How much concern do I need to show so that I'm not an ignorant?
And going by your data which is invalid because it does not contain ALL earthquakes 3 of the top ten have occured in a little over 6 years over 1000 years which equates to 3 earthquakes over the time period of 300 years yet it is around 6 years. Phony data!
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by KostenuikTo make a claim like that you are assuming that there were no unrecorded quakes in the last 1000 or 300 years. A ridiculous assumption, that you deny making in one post but repeat in another.
That depends on what you accept as scientific data. 😞.
And going by your data which is invalid because it does not contain ALL earthquakes 3 of the top ten have occured in a little over 6 years over 1000 years which equates to 3 earthquakes over the time period of 300 years yet it is around 6 years. Phony data!
And you still make jibes about scientific data? 😵
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaBy acceptable data from 1900 onwards you know when people don't drive around on a horse and can fly my claim stands true.
To make a claim like that you are assuming that there were no unrecorded quakes in the last 1000 or 300 years. A ridiculous assumption, that you deny making in one post but repeat in another.
And you still make jibes about scientific data? 😵
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI was looking at what YOU posted and I do not accept. Then I posted one from a reputable website which also does not accept what you posted but 300 years yet even that is NOT sound data... only from 1900 onwards which is what I made my claim off.
You didn't make a claim about the frequency of earthquakes in the last 300 and 1000 years? Are you going to deny that too?
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by KostenuikNo, by the data you link to, the claim that half of the largest quakes happened in the last 10 years is still wrong. But I'm sure you'll just call me names instead of admitting the obvious.
By acceptable data from 1900 onwards you know when people don't drive around on a horse and can fly my claim stands true.
Here, Mr. Non-ignorant, inform yourself from the very websites you quote:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=6&faqID=110
" 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."
Keep your "concern", I'll keep my "ignorance".
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaObvious that I am right and you are an ignorant.
No, by the data you link to, the claim that half of the largest quakes happened in the last 10 years is still wrong. But I'm sure you'll just call me names instead of admitting the obvious.
Here, Mr. Non-ignorant, inform yourself from the very websites you quote:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=6&faqID=110
" Although it may seem that ...[text shortened]... seemed to decrease in recent years."
Keep your "concern", I'll keep my "ignorance".
Look at your ignorant post. You say 10 years when it is closer to 5 as you are a liar. You now are posting crap about earthquakes at 7 when that isn't even what we are talking about. We are talking about the top10 earthquakes in reputable scientific data. We are talking about these large earthquakes that happen in runs that anyone who isn't an ignorant delusional diversional liar like you can see that the present time and for the last six years is a dangerous time for the biggest of quakes.
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by KostenuikHaha, denial is awesome. So you weren't saying we have larger earthquakes and we should be concerned? The website calls this a myth, but I guess you're better informed than the sources you link to!
Obvious that I am right and you are an ignorant.
Look at your ignorant post. You say 10 years when it is closer to 5 as you are a liar. You now are posting crap about earthquakes at 7 when that isn't even what we are talking about. We are talking about the top10 earthquakes in reputable scientific data. We are talking about these large earthquakes that ...[text shortened]... hat the present time and for the last six years is a dangerous time for the biggest of quakes.
26 Apr 11
And yet another page from your linked website denying that this period is somehow special for large earthquakes:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
Can you find me one page there that makes claims that this is a decade unlike the others and we should be concerned?
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaThe only myth around here is the data you use a worthy data when it is estimates. Do you know why that is?? It is an estimate before 1900 because they don't really know for sure but you take myths and make it into facts. It is NO myth that many of the LARGEST earthquakes have happened in the last six years AS ALSO HAPPENED in the sixties. That is actually a fact and from REPUTABLE scientific data not what you pull ouit yer ass.
Haha, denial is awesome. So you weren't saying we have larger earthquakes and we should be concerned? The website calls this a myth, but I guess you're better informed than the sources you link to!
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaAgain you are making up lies from the thoughts in your head.
And yet another page from your linked website denying that this period is somehow special for large earthquakes:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
Can you find me one page there that makes claims that this is a decade unlike the others and we should be concerned?