How much would earthquakes have to increase for you to consider it unusual?
Aug 31, 2010
in
Earthquake Questions
Here are the averages listed on the usgs website:
8.0+ = 1
7.0+ = 15
6.0+ = 134
How far over this would we have to go before you personally would consider it strange or unusual?
MKultra—thanks, but surely someone here on the earth sciences & geology section will know about the usgs (U.S. Geological Survey).
Hmm…Actually I see now that I was being too vague. Those are the average number of earthquakes that occur worldwide per year according to the USGS.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
7 comments
bustersmycat on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 am
I cannot believe that people do not know the USGS.
When discussing frequencies, I need both average and deviation to determine what would be unusual. I would think mean plus 2 sd would suffice to attract my attention as something worthy of note.
EDIT. I looked at the site and the numbers for this year do not seem at all unusual, even taking into account that we are only about 2/3 of the way through the year.
Evan1994 on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 am
Where i live in Cincinnati ANY earthquake is unusual lol…
Fang on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 am
Anything over 5 is big enough to catch my attention.
MKultra on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 am
Those figures you gave don’t actually mean anything to anyone. I’ve never heard of the USGS either.
The question you ask should be pretty obvious to anyone who actually suffers from earthquakes regularly I suppose?. Most of us don’t really suffer earthquakes to increase.
JR on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 am
For an Earthquake to be considered unusual it would have to be quite strong and likely over an 8.0 on the Richter scale. Each week there are 7′s on the Richter scale over the Earth so it would have to be quite a bit stronger.
Crow on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 am
I suppose by definition, anything over 9.0 is unusual, in that it’s not on that list and has only happened once in recorded history that I know of. Two earthquakes in a year in different places over 8.0 would make me say "wow. Bizarre." Two earthquakes over 8.0 in the same fault system–say, one in LA and one in SF, would make me say only, "man, I’m glad I don’t live in California any more!" Any significant earthquake in a place where the maps don’t show a high likelihood would be unusual. East Coast, New Madrid, Quebec, West Coast and Alaska: I expect a strong quake. North Dakota, not so much. I’m ignorant about the map of the rest of the world in that detail, so I’d not be shocked to hear about one anywhere.
But I’m just Jane Doe, and I’m not sure why it matters what I think. The more interesting question, I think, is what rate above that norm would the numbers have to rise in order for seismologists to start thinking, "hey, something really odd is going on here." And to that, I don’t know the answer. Idiots react to every earthquake as if it’s the end of the world or a sign or some, well, idiocy they concoct…but serious people in the field? Maybe anything over double all those totals would start them digging happily for an explanation. But I’m guessing.
A.Ganapathy India on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 am
The highest one ever recorded in the seismograph at CHILI in the year 1960 was 9.6 on Richter scale. Anything more than that will be unusual.