The Frequency of Earthquakes 1 by ### In case we're tempted to believe that earthquakes vary in frequency here is something from the New York Times of April 11, 2010. The op-ed article is written by Roger Musson, a seismologist with the British Geological Survey. He's apparently located in Edinburgh, so Mark can easily get in touch and give him an earful if he disagrees. ARE earthquakes becoming more frequent? This is a question that every seismologist is used to. I was asked it 30 years ago. Thanks to large quakes in Haiti and Chile ? not to mention 7-plus magnitude quakes in Indonesia and Baja California over the past week ? I?ve been asked it a lot lately. And the answer is no. You would think this would be good news, but sometimes people seem faintly disappointed when they hear it. It?s as if a dose of disaster makes life more interesting. It?s true that more earthquakes are recorded than used to be the case, but that?s simply because there are more monitoring stations that are able to pick up minor earthquakes that once went undetected. If we compare the average global rates of large earthquakes, we find that these are stable as far back as we can trace them. On average, we record an earthquake with a magnitude over 6 every three days or so, and over 7 at least once a month. Why then, does it sometimes seem they are more common occurrences? There are two reasons for this. First, people notice it when earthquakes happen in populated places. . . . . . The second reason is that in any semi-random process, you get clustering. Throw enough dice, and sometimes you?ll get several sixes in a row. People notice the clusters; they don?t notice the gaps in between. No one ever asks me during the quiet periods if earthquakes are becoming less frequent. . . Basic geology explains why the number of earthquakes remains relatively constant. Quakes release a lot of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere. Ultimately, the source of it is heat released by the steady decay of radioactive material deep inside the earth. For a real long-term increase in earthquake activity, there would have to be an increase in that energy supply, and it?s hard to see how that could happen. The growth of large urban centers makes for bigger new stories now ? exposure to quakes is increasing. The news lies in whether the quake is in the middle of the ocean or has hit a populated area. And there is a news industry looking for stories to sell. Today the news is of a 4.4 in San Diego. Not much of a story, really, but it could be yet one more which encourages us to believe that quakes are on the rise. Maybe astrology can legitimately look at that "semi-random process" and try to time the clusters, but that wouldn't be the same as predicting an increased frequency of quakes for, say, the next 20 years. The statement "On average, we record an earthquake with a magnitude over 6 every three days or so, and over 7 at least once a month" does let the astrologer know exactly what he or she is dealing with. Quote Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:04 pm
2 by ### I found the article interesting, but really didn't have much idea what I wanted to do with this topic. I suppose the main point I had in mind was how the regular frequency of quakes puts into question such astrological methods as predicting a possible increased frequency of quakes during the period 2011-2016 because of the Uranus-Pluto square. To me the article shows the importance of looking at specific locations and seeing what types of events might be predicted there, including earthquakes, rather than looking for earthquakes themselves and for periods of quake activity worldwide. Quote Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:39 pm
3 by Deb I never thought earthquakes were 'on the rise' anyway, although the idea of waves of increased activity allows a legitimate astrological interest, I think. Thanks for the info. Deb Quote Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:44 pm
4 by Mark He's apparently located in Edinburgh, so Mark can easily get in touch and give him an earful if he disagrees. Well its a big city and I doubt we drink at the same pubs. The growth of large urban centers makes for bigger new stories now ? exposure to quakes is increasing. Yes I think this is a big factor. Not just for earthquakes but for mass tragedies generally today. Human overpopulation makes such incidents far more likely nowadays. The statement "On average, we record an earthquake with a magnitude over 6 every three days or so, and over 7 at least once a month" does let the astrologer know exactly what he or she is dealing with. Yes that helps puts things in perspective. To me the article shows the importance of looking at specific locations and seeing what types of events might be predicted there, including earthquakes, rather than looking for earthquakes themselves and for periods of quake activity worldwide. This problem is clearly a tough nut to crack. I start from the perspective that modern astrology has totally failed to accurately predict such phenomena. To be honest we could hardly do any worse. Still, I agree that using general techniques may be more successful. I have an unsubstantiated confidence that traditional techniques such ingress charts, synodic cycles, fixed stars and eclipses hold the key to predicting these kinds of events more successfully. Here is an article from Ben Dykes on how to delineate an Aries ingress chart using traditional techniques. Pity its a retrospective analysis rather than a prediction. I am not suggesting traditional methods always have to be the best. However, it does seem a lot more productive to be trying out these methods rather than arguing over national charts or gazing over endless event charts with 20/20 vision in hindsight. http://www.bendykes.com/articles/tsunami.php Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:17 pm
5 by ### I start from the perspective that modern astrology has totally failed to accurately predict such phenomena. To be honest we could hardly do any worse. Do we really know if anyone did all that well over the past couple millennia? Are there many records of verified successful earthquake predictions? The existence of traditional prediction techniques doesn't necessarily mean that there ever were many successful earthquake predictions. It does seem like an obvious point, but I'm not sure we look closely enough at the historical record. Oh, I know, I probably should have more faith in it all. Quote Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:22 am
6 by Mark Do we really know if anyone did all that well over the past couple millennia? Are there many records of verified successful earthquake predictions? The existence of traditional prediction techniques doesn't necessarily mean that there ever were many successful earthquake predictions. It does seem like an obvious point, but I'm not sure we look closely enough at the historical record. Oh, I know, I probably should have more faith in it all. A dose of scepticism is always healthy I think. Just as long as its doesn't paralyse you doing anything. Unfortunately traditional authorities didn't have blogs or websites to promote their successes. All the traditional literature I have read is in dry manual form. It seldom gets autobiographical with titles like 'My hundred best predictions'. Lilly rather broke the mould in discussing lots of actual charts. However, there are people here with much better knowledge than I on Arabic or Latin sources. I am not sure earthquake prediction would have been very high in the priority list of the average medieval astrologer. We too easily forget just how fragile life was in this period. Warfare, disease, and famine were the kind of mundane predictions that your average medieval Lord/Prince wanted to know about. As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:23 pm