Seismic activity as a sign of the last days

Originally posted by FMF
If the data is deliberately incomplete or not reliable in any other ways how can you be citing it or extrapolating trends from it?

The data is not deliberately incomplete or unreliable as you have assumed. He is rather inexplicably looking at another source and expecting the data to be exactly the same.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm going to ask this question before we continue, do you have some sort of learning difficulties or special needs because I refuse to believe anyone can actually be this dense?

It's a comedy routine linked, in its style and premise, to his comedy routines about rape, pedophiles and lynching black people.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm going to ask this question before we continue, do you have some sort of learning difficulties or special needs because I refuse to believe anyone can actually be this dense?

its not my fault that you cite a different source of data and crack up when you find out that its different to another source when expecting it to be exactly the same. Perhaps you had better read the report prior to posting such drivel and look at the sources that are cited then you wont go to pieces when you find out that they are different from the ones you think they are or want them to be.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The data is not deliberately incomplete or unreliable as you have assumed. He is rather inexplicably looking at another source and expecting the data to be exactly the same.

How many earthquakes above 6.99 were there between 1986 and 1996?

Originally posted by FMF
I didn't "gather" it. Snyder explicitly referred to what he called "my work". Have I misrepresent what his "work" is? No, I haven't. As for the conversation here, it is about the data=trend claim that robbie made but it has been dismantled. Snyder's "work" has no bearing on the fate of robbie's claim except that his "work" could be used as an example to illustrate what "confirmation bias" means.

In another thread you said you were a writer, writer's write about things. They research, interview and gather information to put into a nice package called a piece, story, article or new phenomenon in recent years... Blog.
Snyder is a writer who wrote a piece about earthquakes, and within that piece is an interesting statement/snippet from a researcher at USGS. It reads...

"We have recently experienced a period that has had one of the highest rates of great earthquakes ever recorded," said lead study author Tom Parsons, a research geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Menlo Park, California. (Emphasis added)

Tom Parsons, according to the piece (and the assumption that the credentials are accurate) is a geophysicist at the USGS and has something to say on the face of it about great earthquakes and the rates of said earthquakes.
take from this post what you like, I am only adding to the debate something that apparently is respected highly and that is info from the USGS, and a researcher that just happens to be a geophysicist at that for the same entity.

I took the liberties of looking up Tom and here is his bio if you are interested.
https://profile.usgs.gov/tparsons

Originally posted by yoctobyte
In another thread you said you were a writer, writer's write about things. They research, interview and gather information to put into a nice package called a piece, story, article or new phenomenon in recent years... Blog.
Snyder is a writer who wrote a piece about earthquakes, and within that piece is an interesting statement/snippet from a researche ...[text shortened]... of looking up Tom and here is his bio if you are interested.
https://profile.usgs.gov/tparsons

Excellent but they are in denial! Seismic activity deniers!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Excellent but they are in denial! Seismic activity deniers!

Mark my word, you are only looking at the upsweep in activity. There will inevitably be a downsweep also as the forces causing the quakes subside, friction dying down, plates re-aligning after collisions causes local locks of the sliding plates which builds up energy as the plates continue to crunch against a lock and of course eventually the energy of the moving plate will exceed the ability of the lock to hold the rocks in place and a big earthquake ensues but that releases the lock and a new lock has to take place which takes time for the forces to overcome so we get a break for a few decades till all hell breaks loose all over the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean which I am sure you know all about.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Mark my word, you are only looking at the upsweep in activity. There will inevitably be a downsweep also as the forces causing the quakes subside, friction dying down, plates re-aligning after collisions causes local locks of the sliding plates which builds up energy as the plates continue to crunch against a lock and of course eventually the energy of the ...[text shortened]... aks loose all over the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean which I am sure you know all about.

...so we get a break for a few decades till all hell breaks loose all over the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean which I am sure you know all about.

How do you know that we are not in that moment now... where "all hell breaks loose all over the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not my fault that you cite a different source of data and crack up when you find out that its different to another source when expecting it to be exactly the same. Perhaps you had better read the report prior to posting such drivel and look at the sources that are cited then you wont go to pieces when you find out that they are different from the ones you think they are or want them to be.

When writing an essay on earthquake frequency and extrapolating patterns from the data, do you think it would be best to use the complete data provided by the USGS or the list with 'selected' data on it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The data is not deliberately incomplete or unreliable as you have assumed. He is rather inexplicably looking at another source and expecting the data to be exactly the same.

I'm looking at the 'complete' data, your source is looking at 'selected' data. The author of the article has missed over 100+ earthquakes out from his/her calculations. It's a joke.

Originally posted by yoctobyte

...so we get a break for a few decades till all hell breaks loose all over the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean which I am sure you know all about.

How do you know that we are not in that moment now... where "all hell breaks loose all over the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean"?

Well it sounds like all hell IS breaking loose and not because of JC for sure. The continents are grinding together and unlocking rock locks that have been in place for decades. That IS what an earthquake is fundamentally.
The movement of the continents never stops, been going on for 500 million years and will for hundreds of millions of years into the future.

Nothing we can do will stop that.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm looking at the 'complete' data, your source is looking at 'selected' data. The author of the article has missed over 100+ earthquakes out from his/her calculations. It's a joke.

Then I suggest that you write to the United States Geological Survey and tell them how funny you find their collection of data.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Mark my word, you are only looking at the upsweep in activity. There will inevitably be a downsweep also as the forces causing the quakes subside, friction dying down, plates re-aligning after collisions causes local locks of the sliding plates which builds up energy as the plates continue to crunch against a lock and of course eventually the energy of the ...[text shortened]... aks loose all over the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean which I am sure you know all about.

Getting a confession of increased seismic activity out of you seismic activity deniers was tricky enough, one mention of Biblical prophecy in conjunction with it was like showing a garlic encrusted crucifix to a vampire, away you skulked arms waving in hysterical denial!! Not because it wasn't true but because you did not want it to be true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Getting a confession of increased seismic activity out of you seismic activity deniers was tricky enough, one mention of Biblical prophecy in conjunction with it was like showing a garlic encrusted crucifix to a vampire, away you skulked arms waving in hysterical denial!! Not because it wasn't true but because you did not want it to be true.

I never said there was no increase. I just said that an increase like that ALWAYS is followed by a decrease because of locks released by said quakes. Eventually locks re-assemble waiting for the next release which is by definition an earthquake.

Why did you think I was denying in increase in activity. I never said that. I SAID the increase we see now will be followed by a downswing for a few years till the next lock starts the process all over again.

This for 100% sure has nothing to do with JC and EVERYTHING to do with geology.

"Joshua fit the battle of Jerico, Jerico, Jerico and the walls came tumbling down' Sounds familiar? So that happened WAY before JC and there was a massive earthquake that hit Masada. I know about that one because I climbed the roundabout path up that 400 meter high hill jutting out of the desert.

Jews built a small city on top of Masada and they had walled off areas made of stone for grain storage and such but what I saw was the walls were only about half as high as they used to be from a massive earthquake somewhere around the year 100 AD somewhat after the Romans built that magnificent ramp up the back side of the hill. Quite an engineering project for a bunch of rag tag soldiers with no bulldozers to work with. Just buckets of dirt built up year by year, a 3 year long effort. Anyway, THAT quake also had nothing to do with JC either.

To say a series of quakes was caused by JC is just wishful thinking on your part. You desperately WANT the rapture or whatever you call this second coming but I for one am not selling my house and moving back to Jerusalem just yet.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Then I suggest that you write to the United States Geological Survey and tell them how funny you find their collection of data.

Are you happy with the fact that the source you cited missed or left out over 100 earthquakes from their calculations for the period 1986-1996, for example? Why would we ask the United States Geological Survey about the glaring omissions from the source you cited?