Science
20 Mar 11
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KostenuikLike I said: denial.
Again you are making up lies from the thoughts in your head.
I didn't deny the data you posted. In fact, I used it to prove your claim was wrong and then used your website to show that your conclusion (that this is a special period and we should be concerned) is denied in several different pages of the very website you quoted.
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYes denial. You tell me why I should find a webpage for you for something that I never claimed. If you take a breather and look back over what I wrote other then the thoughts that pop into your head you will see that I also agree that the sixties were also a time of concern which supports my claim that the BIGGEST of earthquakes happen in runs. Why do I even need to find a webpage that supports what is in black and white? The biggest of earthquakes happen in runs. LOOK AT THE DATA!
Like I said: denial.
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by KostenuikSo now you implicitly attack the credibility your own sources.
Yes denial. You tell me why I should find a webpage for you for something that I never claimed. If you take a breather and look back over what I wrote other then the thoughts that pop into your head you will see that I also agree that the sixties were also a time of concern which supports my claim that the BIGGEST of earthquakes happen in runs. Why do I ev ...[text shortened]... upports what is in black and white? The biggest of earthquakes happen in runs. LOOK AT THE DATA!
You talk a lot about scientific data, but pick a top 10 list that is by definition a collection of extreme outliers to make strong claims. That doesn't sound scientific at all to me. The fact is that there is no evidence that large earthquakes are occurring more often.
But feel free to find a page in that website that claims we should be concerned. Because all I find is pages saying this period is not special (and so there's no reason for particular concern).
I would expect the United States Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program would have a word or two to say about such concern if there were indeed causes for it. Wouldn't you?
26 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaNo because the available data of 100 years compared to billions of years is not accurate enough to make predictions based on fact. It doesnt make them right it doesnt make me wrong. It is a LEARNING process as more and more data comes in. How CAN they possibly know everything with such a small sample size?? They DONT.
I would expect the United States Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazards Program would have a word or two to say about such concern if there were indeed causes for it. Wouldn't you?
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by KostenuikBut you can from your top 10?
No because the available data of 100 years compared to billions of years is not accurate enough to make predictions based on fact. It doesnt make them right it doesnt make me wrong. It is a LEARNING process as more and more data comes in. How CAN they possibly know everything with such a small sample size?? They DONT.
Extraordinary!
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaO.K. so if one or more of the top10 earthquakes happens then it increases the chance that another will happen soon. Momentarily implies that eventually it will cease as the earth settles down again as happened through the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
Can you say that in English? I don't understand what you mean. Momentarily unstable earth?
26 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by KostenuikWhy do you harp on about the data before 1900? Have you missed that the first post I wrote a full sentence in said data before 1900 were guesstimates? Learn how to read first, buddy.
The 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.
Secondly, the USGS uses reputable data. You yourself admitted this. Their statistical studies show that variation across years of large earthquakes is small. If this variation is small, then 100 years is not a huge sample but it's pretty decent. If you knew anything about statistical inference, you would know about the link between sample size, variance and significance. They seem confident to claim this period doesn't seem special. If that is not enough, then your top 10 is definitely even less meaningful.
Thirdly, about your after the fact "predictions" the USGS also claims that nobody can make good predictions about earthquakes and predictions for extreme earthquakes that are meaningful usually have a time horizon of more than a decade (e.g. there's a Y% chance that a major earthquake will hit area X over the next 30 years).
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaMy estimates are not a certain area but the earth.
Why do you harp on about the data before 1900? Have you missed that the first post I wrote a full sentence in said data before 1900 were guesstimates? Learn how to read first, buddy.
Secondly, the USGS uses reputable data. You yourself admitted this. Their statistical studies show that variation across years of large earthquakes is small. If this variatio ...[text shortened]... (e.g. there's a Y% chance that a major earthquake will hit area X over the next 30 years).
26 Apr 11
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. 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
I was right and you were wrong and now 20,000+ people are dead cause you are an ignorant. 😳.