| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| alt.talk.weather (General Weather Talk) (alt.talk.weather) A general forum for discussion of the weather. |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| alt.talk.weather (General Weather Talk) (alt.talk.weather) A general forum for discussion of the weather. |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
May 13th 08, 05:59 AM
posted to uk.sci.weather,alt.talk.weather,sci.geo.earthquakes
|
|||
|
|||
12:18
On May 12, 8:09*am, Dawlish wrote:
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. |
Threaded Mode
