Perhaps you have not followed the arguments between me and others here over the years.
There seems to be some differences of opinion about the details to the cause of atmospheric pressure and temperature changes, specifically in the long term, such as global warming.

The basic premise that I have is that the Earth's atmosphere is accumulating kinetic energy not only from the suspected greenhouse effect but also from the various fission byproducts that have been spread into the atmosphere by human activity.

If a fluid, such as air, is heated, or receives additional kinetic energy from any source, it will expand, (provided that it is not in a confined area) when a fluid expands its density decreases.

What will happen if, by whatever means, the total atmospheric kinetic energy increases?

According to the laws of physics, the atmosphere will expand and push further into space. If such expansion is great enough, it may affect the low Earth orbit satellites that may drop out of the sky before their time.
Since the expanded air has a lower density and higher kinetic energy content, the wind speeds will be much higher that before the addition of the kinetic energy.

IF the kinetic energy of the molecules in the outer reaches of the atmosphere becomes high enough, the molecules will escape into space, if that happens, then the atmospheric pressure/density change will be permanent.

IF the atmospheric molecules escape into space, then the weight of the atmosphere will be less than it was before the escape process.

IF the atmospheric pressure or weight decreases, then the pressure that exists within the Earth will tend to bulge the planets surface. This bulging force will in return cause effects such as earthquakes and volcanos to become more frequent and violent.
Perhaps over thousands of years the earth will expel enough gasses from its interior to again balance the weight/pressures.

I accept the fact that the Sun is the major source of energy that causes the global climate and weather here on Earth
I also accept the thesis that the greenhouse gases can change the weather patterns and perhaps the climate.
On top of these beliefs I believe that the use of nuclear power by many countries has been in a manner that is irresponsible and the resulting exhaust (radioactive pollution) from the use of nuclear power may be causing changes in the atmospheric conditions.

My belief is based partly on the laws of physics and partly on observation over a period of time.

The physics part comes mainly from the Bernoulli's equation which states that, p + qv2/2 + qgy = constant.
where p is the pressure, q is the density, v the velocity and y the height in a gravitational field of strength g, all measured at the same point.

The observation side goes back many years and includes information from the news media and the Internet.

Such as this one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301524.html

The number of 100-acre lakes fell from 10,882 to 9,712, a decline of 1,170 or 11 percent. The scientists said 125 disappeared, replaced by vegetation.

According to the laws of physics, lowering of the atmospheric pressure would cause greater evaporation rate.

From the following site:

http://www.oma.be/BIRA-IASB/Public/Research/Meso/AppliedStudy.en.html#global_change

Concerning the global (worldwide) climate change, long-term measurements show that the mesosphere has cooled during the last fifty years.

When I read this it occurred to me that cooling by evaporation is a similar effect and perhaps the air molecules are escaping into space.

The considerable sensitivity of the mesosphere to external perturbations makes it an outstanding place to test our knowledge of physics and chemistry in the atmosphere and to warn us for future changes in the lower parts of the atmosphere. So either we can explain the evolution of the climate in the mesosphere, and we will have more confidence in the validity of our predictions concerning the influence of human activity on the global climate, or (more likely) we will not be able to fully explain the evolution and we will be obliged to do further research before we can rely on calculated predictions.

From this site:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosphere/Older/Thermosphere.html

The thermosphere (literally "heat sphere") is the outer layer of the atmosphere, separated from the mesosphere by the mesopause. Within the thermosphere temperatures rise continually to well beyond 1000°C. The few molecules that are present in the thermosphere receive extraordinary amounts of energy from the Sun, causing the layer to warm to such high temperatures. Air temperature, however, is a measure of the kinetic energy of air molecules, not of the total energy stored by the air. Therefore, since the air is so thin within the thermosphere, such temperature values are not comparable to those of the troposphere or stratosphere.

I think that we have added more energy to the thermosphere (in the form of radioactive elements) than what the Sun alone gives to it.

"The Earth's atmosphere is full of energy. This energy drives the world's weather, and shapes the climates. Over the longer term, changes to this energy can bring about variations in climate. "

"When the Earth receives (light and ultraviolet) energy from the Sun, much of it is absorbed either by the atmosphere or at the Earth's surface. The Earth re-radiates (infrared) energy back to space, such that there is a balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing energy from the Earth. This global energy balance maintains a fairly even temperature at the surface of the Earth.

Radioactivity IS energy, whether that energy originates from natural and slow decay or induced (fast) fission reaction of the atoms.

The Earth has an 'escape velocity' information is here

There are radioactive elements in the atmosphere, the information is here

Radioactive elements create 'heat', information can be found on the 'net' under 'nuclear power'.

Some atmospheric molecules are escaping into space, information is here

Your question of:

Is that above normal? What is the average number of such earthquakes per day?

Is a good one, and if I would have been keeping accurate records of the events then I could give you an accurate answer.

As it is, I have only kept a casual eye on the number of red and yellow circles on the (linked to) map.
What I have noticed is that there seems to be a burst of activity where you might have 5 or 6 active spots during a single day and following that there may be no activity the next day, it seems to cycle in that fashion, increasing and decreasing at a somewhat random time intervals. (14 events yesterday only 2 today)
Not very "scientific" but still very interesting, what I have noticed though is that there seems to be more big circles shown there now than there was a year ago.