Thanks for all the positive feedback folks(and for the pin)!
nice job op
would also like to see a graph of 5.0 and above from
1900 to 2011...would be interesting
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1244883So would I! I didn't do such a graph for two primary reasons:
First, it would be extraordinarily time consuming to do it properly.
Second, it's impossible to do it properly! The problem with charting old earthquake activity compared to modern activity is that the number of seismic monitors has increased rapidly over the years. If the databases say there were 5000 5.0+ earthquakes in 1900 but there are only 1000 seismic monitors, there is no way to know how many earthquakes there ACTUALLY were relative to modern times when 5,000 occurred with 10,000 seismic monitors. Add to that the fact that record keeping is much more accurate with today's technology and you just can't make real comparisons. Make sense? That is why I limited the activity from 1990-2011.
My first thought about the 4.0-4.9 graph was that MAYBE when that graph was showing higher numbers than the larger mag quakes it was a good thing. They were releasing a lot of stress and therefore there weren't the bigger ones.
Not that means anything unless we can hope that they come back in larger numbers again.
BTW great job its a long task - I've tried it myself and failed through boredom.
Quoting: Keep SmilingI agree with you completely. I am certainly no expert on seismic activity but intuitively that is what makes the most sense. Plus, it goes along with the data trends.
BUMPING because this thread is made of AWESOME effort & doom.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1220210Lol, I thought some of you might appreciate the tangible doom I could provide :-p
Whether or not they end up proving your point, all projects to learn are worthwhile. As long as the goal is to simply learn, being right or wrong is irrelevant!
Quoting: Texas Truthseeker 1309684 Cheers :-)
