On May 11, 11:23*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On 11 May, 21:32, Harold Brooks wrote:
In article 30a432ce-2306-46be-b385-ae23c6a4ff0a@
24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, says...
* * * * * * * * * * U. *S. *G E O L O G I C A L *S U R V E Y
* * * * * * * * * * *E A R T H Q U A K E *D A T A *B A S E
*FILE CREATED: *Fri May *9 10:00:11 2008
*Global Search * Earthquakes= * * * *12
*Catalog Used: NOAA
*Date Range: Year: * *1971 *- * 1971 * Month: 01/Day: 01 * Month: 12/
Day: 31
*Magnitude Range: * 7.0 *- *10.0
*Data Selection: Significant Earthquakes World Wide (NOAA)
Why would the NEIC be using a NOAA database if it were in error?
It's not so much in error as it is different. *It goes back earlier in
time than the USGS data.
Thus making it a superior source of data for the years specified?
"Welcome to the World Data Center for Solid Earth Geophysics, Boulder.
The WDC for SEG is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) *in
Boulder, Colorado.
Data come from surface, aircraft and satellite platforms. See our list
of datasets held by the WDC for SEG."
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/wdc/
http://www.globalcmt.org/cgi-bin/glo.../form?itype=ym...
So I search for quakes of 7 M or more falling between 90 south and 90
north and whatever the full circle is east and west and every day from
January the first to December the thirty first inclusive and the
search misses half of them and it's my fault because I failed to read
the fine print?
I can't seem to find the details in your previous posts. A bit dense I
know, so what am I going to do?
Improve your reading comprehension. *Go to the NEIC site that you
searched from and select "USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present"
I don't think I'll find many earthquakes from 19~ 50, 51, 52, 60, 61,
62, 70 or 72 on that will I?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A 7.5+ earthquake in China.
You missed it by your predictions and I got it spot on with mine. You
predicted a 7.5 earthquake and missed it by a week. I predicted a 7.5
earthquake and got it spot on in the timescale I presented. The
difference? I understand the probabilities and how to use them far
better than you do. That's all we are talking about here. Not
harmonics, or resonance, or interactions of tectonics, atmosphere and
the pull of close celestial bodies, but movements of plates, very
probably completely independent of any of your theories, but
nevertheless presently unpredictable. Seismologists are always on the
watch for the unexpected, W and the unexpected has again happened;
pretty much a once a year earthquake magnitude, this one, completely
unspotted by your theories again, just like you missed Chaiten
erupting, but they are not contacting you for advice. That must be
galling for you, as it will be terribly galling for you when you wake
up and see the news this morning and find you have missed another
"major" event.
Now the Chinese authorities has the aftermath of a 7.5+ earthquake to
deal with in the run up to the olympics. it'll test them, but of
course, you believe they are just "commies" and as such have little
worth.
Still waiting for the "major" volcanic eruption. There has been an
eruption in Kamchatka, in Russia, but you could hardly describe it as
"major". If there isn't one by lunchtime today, your success
statistics will stand at 0/3 = 0%.