<p>You have an interesting graph there. In response to your question, I would say that if we actually use the Mw (moment magnitude) measure of seismic activity (which is related to energy release via slip on a fault), we would see that most of the Earthquakes 'caused' by humans (and note that there are still only a few examples of this, (such as the 5.7 Prague, Oklahoma Earthquake), are limited to intraplate earthquakes which only exceed 4 in rare instances such as the above. </p>

<p>The exact 'percent' of energy release due to induced (human-caused) seismicity would probably not even approach single digits, but possibly reside in values approaching zero, when you consider that the vast majority of earthquakes take place at plate boundaries and outnumber induced earthquakes by a large amount. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-17T09:00:43.727Z
Thank you very much! I'm glad you've mentioned Prague, because from Czech sources I got this map: http://www.sci.muni.cz/~herber/quake/mapacr.gif It shows a 3 "degree" difference in the two main regions of mining. But they say it is in "macroseismic degrees" and I had no idea what it is.
Probably
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-04T23:23:18.837Z
@Probably could you be misreading the map? Its source page has this figure explanation (translated by Bing): map of the expected intensity of the earthquake on the territory of the Czech and Slovak Republic. Izoseisty are marked on the basis of past observations of macroseismic activity. By this, I would assume that macroseismic means earthquakes over a certain intensity. That is, not micro-quakes.
mkennedy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-04T23:24:14.730Z
Image's source page: http://www.sci.muni.cz/~herber/quake.htm
mkennedy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-30T06:59:41.813Z
old mines can produce tiny earthquakes(coal mines)when they collapse but one have to stand on top of them to feel it,and a town in sweden had to be moved as a result of the mining shafts collapsing https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/oct/22/kiruna-sweden-town-moved-east-iron-ore-mine
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-17T01:23:02.440Z
2015-12-17T01:23:02.440Z
Anant Hariharan
<p>Here's a graph from <a href="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/quake1.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">johnstonsarchive.net</a> showing energy released by earthquakes and, however reliable this graph is, it shows huge differences in earthquake activity. About how big percent is the energy of quakes caused by humans?
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/NAlZY.gif" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/NAlZY.gif" alt="rate of natural catastrophes"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-17T12:42:18.150Z
*or more broadly: global warming*. That should be: or more **narrowly**. But I suggest you remove that remark altogether because there is no evidence for correlations.
Jan Doggen
<climate-change><earthquakes><glaciology>
How significant is human influence on seismic activity?
Probably
# How significant is human influence on seismic activity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-12-16)

Here's a graph from [johnstonsarchive.net](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/quake1.html) showing energy released by earthquakes and, however reliable this graph is, it shows huge differences in earthquake activity. About how big percent is the energy of quakes caused by humans?
[![rate of natural catastrophes](https://i.sstatic.net/NAlZY.gif)](https://i.sstatic.net/NAlZY.gif)

**Tags:** climate-change, earthquakes, glaciology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: *or more broadly: global warming*. That should be: or more **narrowly**. But I suggest you remove that remark altogether because there is no evidence for correlations.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-12-17. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

You have an interesting graph there. In response to your question, I would say that if we actually use the Mw (moment magnitude) measure of seismic activity (which is related to energy release via slip on a fault), we would see that most of the Earthquakes 'caused' by humans (and note that there are still only a few examples of this, (such as the 5.7 Prague, Oklahoma Earthquake), are limited to intraplate earthquakes which only exceed 4 in rare instances such as the above.

The exact 'percent' of energy release due to induced (human-caused) seismicity would username_0 not even approach single digits, but possibly reside in values approaching zero, when you consider that the vast majority of earthquakes take place at plate boundaries and outnumber induced earthquakes by a large amount.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you very much! I'm glad you've mentioned Prague, because from Czech sources I got this map: http://www.sci.muni.cz/~herber/quake/mapacr.gif It shows a 3 "degree" difference in the two main regions of mining. But they say it is in "macroseismic degrees" and I had no idea what it is.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 could you be misreading the map? Its source page has this figure explanation (translated by Bing): map of the expected intensity of the earthquake on the territory of the Czech and Slovak Republic. Izoseisty are marked on the basis of past observations of macroseismic activity. By this, I would assume that macroseismic means earthquakes over a certain intensity. That is, not micro-quakes.  
> **username_3**: Image's source page: http://www.sci.muni.cz/~herber/quake.htm  
> **username_4**: old mines can produce tiny earthquakes(coal mines)when they collapse but one have to stand on top of them to feel it,and a town in sweden had to be moved as a result of the mining shafts collapsing https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/oct/22/kiruna-sweden-town-moved-east-iron-ore-mine  

---

