Are earthquakes increasing in strength or frequency?
Just found myself in a debate where the opposition claims earthquakes is on the rise (judgement day, wrath of god, etc..), being a skeptic I of course needed evidence, and where better to get it than to analyse it for myself from raw data?
How many earthquakes are there?
I went to the United States Geological Survey for the raw data, they have a pretty big list of “selected earthquakes of general historic interest” (6.0+) earthquakes recorded (ordered by magnitude, strongest quake first) http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical_mag_big.php
I then made a little computer program to parse the text, and output it in csv format:
java program: Test.java
data text file: quakes.txt (program input)
csv result file: quakes.csv (program output)
The output from the data was opened in a spreadsheet for further analysis. There are 722 quakes in the input data file. I used the data from the period 1900 to 2010 in the statistics below (660 of the 722 total data entries).
The data in table form
6+
7+
8+
1900
9
5
1
1905
14
12
5
1910
14
9
1
1915
9
6
0
1920
10
8
3
1925
15
10
0
1930
20
13
4
1935
12
7
2
1940
16
15
4
1945
21
18
5
1950
21
11
3
1955
20
18
3
1960
12
10
3
1965
34
18
3
1970
21
13
2
1975
18
12
0
1980
15
4
0
1985
17
6
1
1990
17
11
1
1995
31
21
1
2000
110
50
5
2005
194
67
8
The first column is the date of the quakes, the next 3 are number of earthquakes with a magnitude of at least 6, 7 and 8 respectively.
Data is grouped into 5 years.. so the first row with year 1900, is data from 1900 to 1904, followed by 1905 to 1909, etc..
Graph
Click for larger version
Conclusion This graph makes it look like earthquakes are running rampant, and you might have seen a very similar graph on the Internet (YouTube and other places), used by conspiracy cranks as an argument that earthquakes are increasing. But fortunately this graph is very misleading.
The data used to make it is complete rubbish, to quote the page they are collected from: “selected earthquakes of general historic interest”.. These quakes have been hand picked as the most interesting ones, and the data has a HUGE bias towards newer earthquakes, so you can’t make any meaningful statistics out of it (except if you are making statistics of which years the guy who compiled the data finds “interesting”).
Maybe we should try and remake the graphs using some good solid data..
== Real Data ==
A scientist at the USGS was kind enough to send me a datafile with all the 7.0+ earthquakes from 1900 to 2010 (all the registered quakes, not filtered in any way).
Making some graphs from those data yields results consistent with what the experts on earthquakes are saying.. They are totally random and unpredictable, and there has been no increase of earthquakes since we started recording them:
Frequency of earthquakes from 1900 to 2010. Click for bigger version:
Distribution of earthquakes by month:
Distribution of earthquakes by day of month, (day 31 omitted for obvious reasons):
Seeing as I made a list of what lesser scholarly inclined would call “evidence for homeopathy“, I find it only fitting to also provide a a few studies that show no effect of homeopathy. These are only a few, you can find tons more on pubmed, or wikipedia.
Note, that many of these are meta studies which means it’s a study of several other studies (usually some poor ones). This means there will often be some weak results saying there is an effect other than placebo. This is caused by poor studies (methodological flaws, insufficient randomization, ineffective blinding, confirmation and publication biases, etc..) that are “averaged” into the results of the meta study.
A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy (link)
“In conclusion, the hypothesis that any given homeopathic remedy leads to clinical effects that are relevantly different from placebo or superior to other control interventions for any medical condition, is not supported by evidence from systematic reviews”
Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments(link)
“The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition”
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects(link)
“This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects”
Clinical trials of homoeopathy(link)
“At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias”
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials(link)
“the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition”
Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy(link)
“There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies”
Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy(link)
“We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”
The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture(link)
“While the methodological quality of the trials was highly variable, the majority had important shortcomings in reporting and/or methodology.”
Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?(link)
“Contrary to many claims by homeopaths, there is no conclusive evidence that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are different from placebos. The benefits that many patients experience after homeopathic treatment are therefore most probably due to nonspecific treatment effects. Contrary to widespread belief, homeopathy is not entirely devoid of risk. Thus, the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies, beyond the beneficial effects of placebos, do not outweigh the potential for harm that this approach can cause”
Efficacy of homeopathic arnica(link)
“The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials”
A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995(link)
“The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports”
Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment(link)
“Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care”
Homeopathy for chronic asthma(link)
“here is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma”
Homeopathy for dementia(link)
“In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia”
Homoeopathy for induction of labour(link)
“There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction”
Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine(link)
“Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic treatment”
Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy(link)
“The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies.”
The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers(link)
“There is no indication that belladonna 30CH produces symptoms different from placebo or from no intervention”
Comparison of homeopathy, placebo and antibiotic treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cows(link)
“Evidence of efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond placebo was not found in this study”
Homeopathic Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness after long-distance running(link)
“Homeopathic Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness following long-distance running” I just had to include this. not often the conclusion and title are identical
Recently in a “discussion” with a homeopath, I’ve been asking for documentation that homeopathy actually works. In the references I got, even the studies that claim even a small effect of homeopathic medicine, also point out methodological weaknesses and flaws of the studies. If this is the best studies homeopaths can point to, it’s nothing short of pathetic.
The title of the studies are in bold, to find the study just google the title and you’ll find it on pubmed. You should also read the whole article if available (especially the findings, conclusion and discussion parts are fun).
Homeopathy for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or hyperkinetic disorder
MAIN RESULTS: The forms of homeopathy evaluated to date do not suggest significant treatment effects for the global symptoms, core symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity or impulsivity, or related outcomes such as anxiety in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.
Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group
CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.
A critical overview of homeopathy
some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines.However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine
Clinical trials of homeopathy. British Medical Journal
CONCLUSIONS: At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials
INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.
The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite. This, of course, was never our intention.
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
INTERPRETATION: there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
A randomised, controlled, triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome
CONCLUSIONS: There is weak but equivocal evidence that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to placebo. Results also suggest that there may be nonspecific benefits from the homeopathic consultation. Further studies are needed to determine whether these differences hold in larger sample
How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?
Our findings demonstrate that patients who seek homeopathic treatment are likely to improve considerably, although this effect must not be attributed to homeopathic treatment alone.
“The aim of this study, however, was not to test the effectiveness of homeopathic drug treatment”
Today was the international 10:23 campaign. Thousands of people with a bias towards reality took huge overdoses of Homeopathic “Medicine”.
I took around 70 (3500% overdose) homeopathetic sleeping pills today, if I had taken real sleeping medicine I would probably be dead or dying about now.
Homeopathy of course is pure and utter bullshit, the 70 pills did not make me sleepy or affect me in any way, which is exactly what is expected for a “medicine” which has no active ingredients and consequently fail to show any effect besides placebo when scientifically tested.
Letting 60 pills melt under your tongue at once kinda sucks btw…
I recently read on twitter that Kent Hovind was released from jail!
The tweet came from Michael Shermer, however this fortunately proved to be false. Kent is still locked away and not scheduled for release until 2015
For those who don’t know, Dr. Kent Hovind (Not really a doctor, but he likes to think that piece of paper from a diploma mill makes him one) is a creationist who thinks that the world is 6000 years old.
He thinks evolution (and even mathematics) is a religion.
The grand canyon was formed in a couple of weeks.
Thinks humans at dinosaurs lived at the same time (The Flintstones hypothesis).
Sentenced for 10 years for tax fraud (Denying evolution just makes you an idiot, but denying taxation will kinda ruin your day).
If you’re interested in his fantastically erroneous claims filled with logical fallacies and outright lies, you could check out drdino.com
I personally avoid such sites, because no matter how many times you point out their errors, these fundamentalists will continue using the same old shot to pieces arguments like nothing happened.
For example the latest post on Dr Dino is an excellent display in being wrong:
“Nobody has ever seen ANY plant or animal (including apes and humans) produce ANYTHING other than their own kind”
This is a false continuum fallacy, which is like saying one brick is not a pyramid, and adding just one brick does not make it a pyramid.
Adding one brick millions of times will in fact make a pyramid, just as many very small genetic modifications over a huge amount of time will make a human.
This argument also has a straw man fallacy. No scientist says there is a sharp line between being a pre-human ape, and being a modern human. Just like there is no sharp line between being a pile of bricks and being a pyramid. Small progress over time is one of the cornerstones of evolution, and is almost always (deliberately) misunderstood by creationists. The notion that an animal will over ONE generation make something so different that it’s an entirely new species is just silly and has nothing to do with evolution (it does however happen in X-men).
“Every farmer on planet earth throughout all of recorded history has counted on evolution NOT happening! When the farmers plant corn, they expect (and get) CORN—EVERY TIME!”
This is the same argument as above just using plants instead of humans (very clever), containing the same logical fallacies. Instead of simply repeating my reply from above, I’ll reply with images:
Banana 7000 years ago:
Modern Banana:
Of course nobody in their right mind believes you can plant the first image (oldskool banana) and get a modern one. However evolving it over the course of thousands of year is no problem. In fact almost all plants, vegetables and fruits used in agriculture today has been specifically evolved over thousands of years (by artificial selection instead of natural) to make stuff we humans find appealing.
For more fantastic creationist banana based arguments, check out this awesome video
“There are billions of bones in the ground but no “record.” Some people put their interpretation on those bones but NONE have dates on them when they are found and none can talk”
Is “lying” a logical fallacy? guess not.. There have been discovered hundreds of millions of fossils all over the world, and they make up a record (small and simple life forms are the oldest, and diversity and complexity increase over time). Fossils can be dated with a very high accuracy (1% error on radiometric dating from 60 million years ago), Kent of course does not believe in this kind of dating since it conflicts with his religious views. The bones talk by showing how creatures have gradually changed over time.
“The idea is that evolution happened so fast that no evidence was preserved”
Punctuated equilibrium is not a required feature of evolution, it’s just an unproven hypothesis that states that evolution happens very quickly (quickly compared to geological timeframes, it’s still taking tens of thousands of years). Considering how few animals turn into fossils out of all animals that ever lived, rapid changes over a 50’000 year period of evolution could easily be lost
There is not a scientific consensus regarding the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis, like there is for the theory and scientific fact of evolution. Evolution as a whole does not in any way depend on this hypothesis (which just tries to explain minor details that can be explained by other mechanisms).
“If you have ever broken even ONE of God’s laws (….such as lying,….) I suggest you get a good lawyer”
“I know one who has NEVER lost a case. He is my advocate for judgment day”
It must be nice being able to lie your ass off, when you got Jesus as a lawyer..
I noticed this morning that my cereal box has the following claim on it: “A study shows that 8 out of 10 who eats Kellogg’s All-Bran at least 3 times a week experience better digestion*”.
“*Source: Nordic study based on 643 respondents (who eats Kellogg’s All-Bran at least 3 times per week). The Nielsen Company 2007.”
This claim is reiterated on the Norwegian site, but the US site makes no such claims. (googling for “Kellogg’s health claims” might explain why).
Now, when making a health claim one would usually (unless you’re a homeopath, faith healer, acupuncturist, chiropractor, aura cleanser, can shoot rainbows out of your tummy, etc..) back up that claim with good scientific evidence, in other words you can show to a collection of scientifically valid experiments/studies.
This so called study as described above certainly raises a couple of red flags, and I suspect this “study” is of extremely poor quality, or maybe even be just a simple poll (not a scientific study at all).
Of course being a curious fella I sent the following mail to Kellogg’s:
Regarding the study being referred to on the All-Bran packaging and the website (http://www.allbran.no), carried out by The Nielsen company 2007.
How may I obtain a copy of this study?
How did the selection of participants for the study take place?
What’s the distribution of participants between the different nordic countries, age composition and sex composition?
What where the criteria for participant selection?
Which questions where used, and how were the answers quantified?
Of the 643 persons referred to in the study, how big a part of the total participants in the study do these represent?
Is the data collected only based on self reporting of the daily intake of All-Bra, and the self reporting of the perceived increase in digestive function?
Which methods were used to account for the placebo effect?
I recently saw a video debate between David Robertson and Alistair McBay
The only entertaining part of the debate are the numerous occasions where Robertson talks about all the great evidence for god’s existence, without ever mentioning the actual evidence itself. His crappy book lists the following 10 pieces of “evidence”: (source: http://bethinking.org/)
1. The Creation. By that I mean the heavens and the earth, from the smallest atom to the vastest galaxy. It all shouts to me of the glory of God. As I write I am sitting in my parent’s home in the Scottish Highlands overlooking the Dornoch Firth. The night is still and clear and in a moment I will go and clear my head and gaze up at the stars.
This it not proof, it is merely stating the obvious.. The universe and everything was created at some point, it does not prove that someone did it.. And if for some reason the creation of the universe required a creator, it would not favor the christian God any more than it favored Ymir, Nyx, Unkulunkulu or Xenu.
2. The Human mind and spirit. Why are we conscious? Why are we special? And life. Where does it come from? How can we get life from non-life?
I hardly expect Christians to be good judges of what constitutes evidence, it is after all not often evidence appear as a series of questions.. I’m almost disappointed. We are conscious because our brains have evolved (at least for some of us) that way. Who said we are special? How life can be created from inorganic and inanimate matter is a own field called abiogenesis.
3. The Moral Law. How do we know what good and evil is? Why do we have a sense of that at all?
Good and evil are subjective terms, that is different from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion and changes with time. Most humans have a set of common morality like “dont kill people”, this nice deal probably started thousands of years ago when cavemen formed together to make small communities to improve the chances of survival.. These communities would be less efficient if people randomly killed eachother.
If we where to get our moral sense from the bible, then killing homosexuals, people who works on sundays, men who sleep with their stepmoms would all be morally good calls.
4. Evil. Unlike Dawkins I cannot believe in the innate goodness of human beings. I see too much evil and no explanation fits what I observe as neatly and realistically as the teaching of the Bible. More than that I find that the Bible also brings us the answer to evil – and I have never yet come across any philosophy which does so.
Wow.. Evil can be motivated by greed, jealousy, hatred, chemical imbalances in the brain, and is a interesting field for social anthropologists everywhere.. The fact that Robertson think the most realistic and “neat” explanation is that it’s all Satan’s fault and a bad choice of fruit really blows my mind. Still the existence of evil does not disprove or prove the existence of God.. It proves the existence of whatever it is YOU perceive as good or evil and the fact that you can label stuff.
5. Religion. Yes there is so much in religion that is wrong and in many ways I hate religion. Generally I think it is a human imitation that more often than not blocks the way to God rather than opens it. And yet it is an imitation of something that is real. As Augustine said, ‘Our hearts were made for you, O God, and they are restless until they find their rest in you.’
Finally, we have something in common.. I too hate religion but now to the WONDERFUL argument.. God is real BECAUSE “(religion) is an imitation of something that is real”. Wow.. Why did he not just make “it is real” his ONLY argument? it would have been a sure winner..
6. Experience. I believe because I have tasted that God is good. Of course we can be deluded in our experience (that is why we need to reflect). And we can be wrong in our knowledge. But it would be a strange kind of person who did not take into account their experiences as part of the whole package. Not long after I became a Christian I was visiting a ‘hippy’ home where amidst all the music and drugs paraphernalia there was a poster stuck on the wall. Its words have remained with me ever since: ‘All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all that I have not seen’. Sure – answered prayer, that sense of God’s presence and that joy in worship may all have been illusory. But then again it may all have been real.
Personal experience and anecdotal evidence are always great ways of winning an argument, they are also great ways of selling alternative medicine.
All persons take into account their experiences, but not all people automatically assumes a deity is at work every time something statistically interesting happens.
“it may all have been real”.. Or maybe he was getting high from second hand marijuana smoking?
7. History. Again as I have continued to read and study history it has broadened my horizons and enables me to see in the words of the old cliché that it is ‘His Story’. The history of mankind makes a whole lot more sense when it is set in the context of the history of God.
The fact that mankind’s history makes much more sense to him, if there existed a God, does nothing more than prove that he is a poor historian who is unable to deal with the cause and effect, randomness, chaos and human unpredictability that makes up our rather interesting history.
8. The Church. I mentioned earlier that there are things in the Church that more than anything else have caused me to doubt. When you see Christians behaving in a way which would shame Satanists, when you see preachers being pompous, hypocritical, money and glory-grabbers, then it is enough to put you off Christianity for life. But I have also seen the other side. I have seen the most beautiful people (some of whom had been quite frankly ugly before their conversion) behave in the most wonderful, inexplicable ways. Inexplicable that is except for the grace and love of God. The Church at its best is glorious, beautiful and one of the best reasons to believe.
Yes, the church may have good and bad sides, and Robertson have apparently seen both sides.. This proves that Robertson can observe the world around him.. great job proving stuff..
And the fact that you don’t understand how people can change personality except for God’s love.. Each time an idiot gets a question that there is no apparent answer to, this is more than enough evidence that some god did it.
The Church at its worst is murderous, authoritarian, credulous, ugly and one of the best reasons to stick with reality.
9. The Bible. Again I mentioned problems that I have had and occasionally still have. But I can truthfully say this – that every year I read the Bible through at least once, that every day I try to read it and every week I study it in order to proclaim it. It has been a source of challenge, comfort, truth and renewal. I have no doubt that God speaks to me through it (and I don’t mean the kind of loopy ignoring of context or more esoteric interpretations). In fact, I am so assured of this, experiencing it continually, that I have very little time for Christians who are always looking for ‘extra words’ – as though the Bible were not enough. For me the thrill is still there.
Thank you for proving that you love the bible. That is really really interesting.
10. Jesus. I guess that any one of the above nine reasons would not be enough on their own – although I think their cumulative effect is overwhelming. But this is the icing on the cake. Actually no … this is the cake. Jesus is the reason I believe and will continue to believe:
Yes, the cumulative effect of the reasons above are not only overwhelming, they are STAGGERING, I can barely hold myself from screaming out in joy, accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior..
‘In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things..(lots of crappy bible quotes)…..Would I really want to trade Jesus Christ for the Selfish Gene? No thanks. ‘For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ.’ Why would I swap the fullness of Jesus Christ for the emptiness of a universe and life without God?
Why would you swap the fullness of magical pony’s shooting rainbows of love at you from puffy clouds, with a sporadically hateful god who kills infants and tells you lots of things you can’t do, but most of his followers do anyway?
And why should you? The wonderful thing about Jesus Christ is that you cannot inherit him, he cannot be bought and you cannot earn him. He simply comes as a free gift to all who would receive him. I leave you with some words from another man who had his life changed by Jesus and I pray that you too will see, believe and be changed.
Why should you live in the real world? A good psychosis will get you anywhere. The magic pony’s also comes as a free gift, and they won’t judge you or send you to hell even if you DON’T believe in them.
I leave you with some words from one of the greatest thinkers of our time (who is also very handsome).
“David Robertson is a complete tool, he think he is so smart when bringing up his crappy half-baked arguments which are nothing more than a bunch of empty statements and his own personal opinions. He should be forbidden to ever use the word “Evidence” as he clearly has no idea of the meaning of the word. His statements about us atheists defining evidence in such a way that he can never prove something is bullshit. We don’t define evidence, you present the evidence which is either good evidence (makes sense, can be tested, can be falsified, etc.) or it is SHIT (old writings by unknown authors, vague metaphysical statements that you pull out of your ass, pseudo scientific nonsense).
What did this moron expect? that we would say ‘we will accept ANYTHING as evidence’, again Robertson obviously needs a goddamn dictionary. What if I where to complain that the criteria for evidence where unfair when trying to prove my magical rainbow pony theory? That people where narrow and closed minded because they did not take my buckets full of invisible magic pony hair as evidence?
If I did that, I would have to be a complete idiot.. Like Robertson”
