6.4 Earthquake Strikes Taiwan

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/03/taiwan.quake/index.html?hpt=T2

Thankfully no casualties but I must say what’s going on with the world? There’ve been earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, Pakistan (last Saturday right after Chile’s), and now Taiwan. I laugh at the 2012 theory but it seems everything’s converging for that year to be the year of the apocalypse. For instance according to St. Malachy’s predictions of the Popes Benedict XVI is the next-to-last one and a calculation in the 1970s of each Pope reigning ten years brought the date of the Apocalypse to 2013. Than there’s Harold Camping of Family Radio who believes the Apocalypse will take place in 2011. According to the generational cycle we’re in a Crisis period comparable to the Great Depression and World War II era and 2012 will be a seminal election year like 1932.

Geology.

There are a lot of Earthquakes, there have always been a lot of Earthquakes.

However, as of (relatively) recently, the News Media has much more access (and people care more) about events that happen outside of their localities, so they’re reported on more often.

All of this stuff is nice and interesting, but none of it is anything but “oh noes, the world will end!” (literally, that’s what it is.)

Historically speaking, no one has ever been right about the world ending. I see no reason to credit anyone alive now with considerably more insight than they had, therefore I see no reason to assume the world will end in my generation.

Further, what we’re approaching could be described as a pivotal time in history, not the end of history. Of course, that’s a ridiculous sentiment, because every time is a pivotal time in history. Things as trivial as the timing of the the Corsican inclusion in the French Republic could’ve irrevocably changed history (despite how trivial two or three years might have seemed at the time), because unpredictable factors like the birth Napoleon Bonaparte.
There’s always “the end of days,” only a generation (maybe a little more or less) ago, the end of the world was Hitler, half a generation before that, it was Germany, Austro-Hungaria and the Ottomans, before that it was something else, and so on and so on, back to the Crusades, and before that it was the Barbarians from the North (for the Roman Empire). And that’s only counting Europe – if we include Asia, Africa and the Americas then the world has almost certainly been simultaneously ending in at least half a dozen places for the past thirty thousand years, at least.

Several large earthquakes in little over a month?

The apocalypse is a bunch of bullshit. There have been a couple of very large earthquakes in the last month, but there’s no larger meaning. They’re disasters, not the beginning of a disaster movie.

For example, here is some Bible code garbage involving the 2004 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean. But we’re still here.

“Several” and “large” are both relative terms, but yes. That’s not rare.
It’s uncommon, but it’s not rare. There are a number of possibilities, the most plausible of which is that it’s simply a coincidence. If you roll a set of 6 sided dice 100 times, and so do *9,999 other people, the majority of you will come up with 7 as the most common number rolled.

However, among them, there will be people rolled no sevens, and only sevens. The ones who rolled only sevens would be the “several large earthquakes in a little over a month” representatives. There aren’t many, but they do exist.

*The number 9,999 not meant to be relevant to actual statistical probabilities, only meant as a representative statistic. In reality, there have been far, far more than 10,000 months in the geological history of Earth, so that number would probably be more like 54,000,000,000.

Sure. There are hundreds of earthquakes across the world every single day.

Here’s a list of earthquakes over 5.0 that have occurred across the world in the past week. 'Quakes over 6.0 are highlighted in red - 15 of those just in the last week.

Real whoppers like the recent 8.8 in Chile are pretty rare. The 7.0 in Haiti was much smaller (about 1/80th the magnitude) but only killed so many people because of the extremely shoddy building construction there. Places that have well-engineered buildings and get frequent earthquakes (Like Japan, which got a 7.0 last Friday) rarely see many casualties from them.

I’m not sure, but aren’t all of these earthquakes occurring in area’s around the Pacific plate? Maybe the Pacific plate has a greater build up of forces acting on it than usual and as a result there is an increase in seismic activity.

Not the Haiti quake, no. Maybe the others.

Yes, it’s called the Ring of Fire. (No relation to Johnny Cash.)

Oh absolutely. The Pacific Ring of Fire is the source of 90% of the world’s earthquakes. (and also most of its volcanism, hence its name) It borders a lot of subduction zones (where one tectonic plate is being pushed underneath another), which tend to have the largest and most violent earthquakes.

Edit: damn, fuzzypickles beat me by seconds.

I’d like to point out that 12 of those 6.0+ ones are listed as Chile, and another listed in Argentina. Most of the rest of that list are Chilean aftershocks. It still raises the bar for much more than shoulder-shrugging at reports of earthquakes around the world, though.

I’m about to go to bed, so I’m not going to look it up, but wasn’t there a recent study looking at the effects of a major earthquake on seismic activity in far-away places?

Curtis LeMay, give us a list of all earthquakes over some long period. Show us that the number or the severity of earthquakes is higher over some recent period than over the entire long period. Furthermore, show us a statistical analysis that this increase is statistically significant. Otherwise, you got nothing.

Incidentally, do you seriously expect the generally cynical members of the SDMB to be impressed by the “authorities” that you cite in your OP? The 2012 theory? Harold Camping? St. Malachy? The generational cycle? When have the posters of the SDMB ever considered such people or such theories to be useful guides to the future? What I’m bringing up isn’t a question of whether these people you cite are correct or not. I’m wondering if you have any understanding of your audience. Do you have any idea about what sorts of things the members of the SDMB trust or are interested in?

There has always been earthquakes etc. in various places even before men lived on earth. Look back at History, every generation thought this would be the end of the world. According to the Bible, Jesus was quoted that he would return in glory with His angels before some of them standing there died. He also said that that generation would not pass away until all things were accomplished. When it didn’t happen it was translated to mean another generation, but matthew who quoted this used the word generation the same as we do today, stating that there were 14 generations between David and Jesus.

I once wrote down all the Popes that Malachy predicted and if I remember right the last one was to be named Peter, and one was from the cresent which would be in the east not from Germany. If I still have the list I will put it on the Dope.

Hell, that’s not even cynicism. Rejecting that stuff is just basic skepticism or even common sense.

Not only that, ‘end of the world’ prophesying is usually called millennialism because people thought the year 1000 AD was going to be the end of the world. Doomsaying is one of the oldest professions.

Curtis LeMay, this question is just for you. (So, please, I don’t care about anyone else’s answer.) Do you have any idea at all about what sort of audience you’re speaking to here? You’ve been on the SDMB for over seven months and have made over 1,500 posts. Why do you still make posts that look like you have never read the board at all?

Wait… You think the 2012 “theory” is laughable, but you buy the whole apocalypse “theory”. :confused:

And you don’t see the funny in that?

Well, technically, you don’t have to read anything to make 1,500 posts.

More specifically, plate tectonics.

There are planets with no plate tectonics (and, therefore, very few quakes). All the ones we know of are inhospitable to life as we know it. There’s a theory, growing in popularity, that plate tectonics is essential for life on a planet.

If the Snowball Earth hypothesis is correct, plate tectonics is why the Earth isn’t completely covered with ice now. There probably wouldn’t be life on land if the Snowball Earth hadn’t ended. There certainly wouldn’t be life as we know it on Earth.

Plate tectonics, and better news coverage than we used to have. We hear more now about earthquakes a long way away from us than we would have 25 years ago, because now we have more 24-hour news channels. It makes it seem like there are more earthquakes, but really there aren’t. Just like a lot of people in the US think there’s more crime now than there was when they were growing up in the 70’s and 80’s. In fact, there’s less, but there’s more news coverage of the crime that does happen, so it seems like there’s more.

I’ll see you in 2014, Curtis. I hope you will be wise enough by then to admit all those end of the world predictions are baloney.

Tell you what I’ll do, Curtis. I’ll make a bet with you. If the world ends in 2012, I will pay you $100,000. If we get to January 1, 2013, and it hasn’t ended yet, you pay me $100,000. How 'bout it?