USGS and EMSC. Comparative statistics.

Views: 1654

Comment

You need to be a member of Earth Changes and the Pole Shift to add comments!

Join Earth Changes and the Pole Shift

Comment by Arto on March 6, 2012 at 9:28am

@Howard

Thank You! Now it makes sense :)))

Comment by Howard on March 6, 2012 at 3:43am

Arto wrote: "Does this mean that the EMSC graph also holds all quakes from 2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4 and 4.1, 4.2,4.3,4.4? BUT they are missing from USGS line?"

EMSC does not report quakes in North America that are lower than 4.0 and USGS does not report quakes outside the U.S. lower than 2.5.  Thus, the red graph includes quakes >2 in Europe, and the blue graph includes quakes >2.5 in the U.S.  Therefore, USGS is not "missing" the magnitude 2.1 thru 2.4 quakes reported by EMSC per se, since these quakes would not have been reported by USGS.

What the author of this analysis has brilliantly accomplished is the normalization of what would otherwise be incongruous data provided by two separate reporting entities and clearly illustrated:

1.  The annual number of quakes reported by EMSC has consistently increased since October 2004.

2.  That USGS reported a dramatic decrease in quake activity between December 2008 and January 2009, which is highly unlikely in a December magnetic trimester - even without a pending Pole Shift.

3.  An overall decrease in earthquakes reported by USGS since October 2004 which is clearly not an accurate trend.

I also invite you to consider the possibility that the "key" for the blue graph up top that reads: "USGS. Since January 2009 U.S. with a magnitude..." is a typo since the graph obviously begins in October 2004.

Comment by Arto on March 5, 2012 at 9:24pm

@Planet Twelve

Hi. I totally agree with you that the USGS is downgrading the quakes, but it it the graph that puzzles me.

What I mean is this does not show  "USGS Since January 2009..." it shows "USGS Since October 2004.." Am I right?

Other thing that takes my attention is that USGS shows quakes from 2.5 US and 4.5 from the world. EMSC show quakes from US 2.0 and 4.0. Does this mean that the EMSC graph also holds all quakes from 2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4 and 4.1, 4.2,4.3,4.4? BUT they are missing from USGS line?

This is why I asked max5 to use exact the same parameters for the graph.

I am no good understanding this kinda stuff. I'm sorry if you are banging your head against the wall :)

Comment by Planet Twelve on March 5, 2012 at 3:21pm

@Arto

The blue line is recording earthquakes, reported by USGS,  with a magnitude > 2.5 in the US and >4.5 in the rest of the world. The line describes erratic peaks and troughs and an overall downward trend. A picture of dropped quakes, dumbed-down magnitudes and mass data fiddling.

The red line is recording quakes reported by EMSC with a magnitude >2 in Europe and >4 in the rest of the world. That line is describing a fairly steady rise since  '04, as expected, and predicted by the Z's early on. Planet X zoomed into the vicinity in "03, and the rise since that time is obvious in that red line.

A picture of the effects a giant magnet will have on a little one.

Overall we see a Liar, and puppet of the Establishment exposed.


Comment by Arto on March 5, 2012 at 2:39pm

Hi max5. Can you provide this same data with exact the same parameters? This graph says:

USGS since january 2009 us with a magnitude >2.5 the rest of the world >4.5  and the other is

EMSC Europe with a magnitude >2, the rest of the world >4

AND the graph starts from Oct 04 ?? Sorry, I don't follow. Can someone help me to understand this.

Comment by Warren Lee on February 21, 2012 at 9:29pm

Part Three of three pages

 This may interest some

Number of Earthquakes in the New Zealand Region from 1960 to 2010

Year

Magnitude
4.0-4.9

Magnitude
5.0-5.9

Magnitude
6.0-6.9

Magnitude
7.0-7.9

Magnitude
8.0 or over

Annual Total

1960

213

31

3

-

-

247

1961

124

16

3

-

-

143

1962

164

16

-

-

-

180

1963

144

6

1

-

-

151

1964

168

12

2

-

-

182

1965

144

14

4

-

-

162

1966

162

16

-

-

-

178

1967

170

13

-

-

-

183

1968

420

35

1

1

-

457

1969

284

10

1

-

-

295

1970

263

17

2

-

-

/body>
Comment by Warren Lee on February 21, 2012 at 9:27pm

Part two of post

Starting: Wed Feb 1 20:46:41 NZDT 2012
Ending: Tue Feb 21 05:02:33 NZDT 2012
Messages: 50

Comment by Warren Lee on February 21, 2012 at 9:25pm

Hi Malou and Henri and thanks for your welcomes I tried to post this yesterday but it was rather large (10 A4 page and I think It got lost in cyberspace but today is more appropriate anyway because it is the anniversary of the 2nd major quake in Christchurch last year and they are still suffering .  Yesterday I did some research on quakes here and as I said mort go unrecorded on the Global quake sites, but I did note that they have posted a 3 mag this morning but  ignored the 5. and 4. 9 we had yesterday, which is exactly my point. In the past 18 months since the first Christchurch  quake New Zealand has had over 21ooo quakes of which less than 50 (my guess only)  have made the global lists it maybe that a 1 mag in LA is more important than a 5 meg here but it showing evidence of the selective information that is being given to us.

Attached are the 10  pages I ‘ve mentioned and all the information is from our Government earthquake web site and therefore freely available so I don’t think the cover up is from this end. As there is a character limit showing I have divided the post into Three parts

 

Following Lists cover New Zealand’s  earthquake activity over selected headed periods none of which seem to be made available on most Global incident sites that I have found. This concerns me because while the information is freely available at our Governments quake site www.geonet.org.nz it is not being fed to the global site – why not ?

Starting: Sun Jan 1 02:43:46 NZDT 2012
Ending: Tue Jan 31 16:53:33 NZDT 2012
Messages: 159 From  www.geonet.org.nz

Comment by Malou (Marie Louise) Geleff on February 20, 2012 at 12:49am

Hi Warren Lee & welcome here.. There´s a diligent group of Downunders´here on the Ning who regularly post those missing quakes to the http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/earthquakes-worldwide blog.

Japan is being looked after, separately. (Something you wish to find : use the Search Engine at top right of every page, here. It may take a while to know which words to plot, but you´ll soon get the gist of it). Other than that : Who else has their quakes dropped ? : many....  too many.

Comment by Henri Slabbert on February 19, 2012 at 11:49pm

My good man Warren,

Please accept my sympathies. You guys have it rough. However. Here's a source of information which will equip you to not only understand, but to inform. And to prepare.

http://www.zetatalk.com/

Best of luck, good man.

Don't be lazy. Read it all. And spread the word.

Henri

SEARCH

Donate

© 2014   Created by Gerard Zwaan.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service