Phantom Quake of magnitude 6 strikes northeast of Australia's Norfolk Island

An earthquake magnitude 6 hit Australia's Norfolk Island on December 5th 2018, but the USGS website removed all references about this quake.

www.usgs.gov...

But there is still an article on Reuters about this earthquake.

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A shallow earthquake of magnitude 6 struck northeast of Australia’s Norfolk Island on Thursday, the United States Geological Survey said.

There was no immediate tsunami warning and no reports of damage or casualties from the quake, which hit at a depth of 10 km (6 miles), about 681 km (423 miles) northeast of Norfolk Island.

Reporting by Clarence Fernandez; Editing by Darren Schuettler

www.reuters.com...

This is not the first time some of us have noticed that USGS is removing earthquakes from it's public database.

USGS Not Showing Some Earthquakes While EMSC Does

Soon enough we are going to have an USGS shill trying to claim that this quake, like others, simply didn't occur. That same person will post the public official graph of earthquakes from USGS, which ironically shows no increase in earthquake activity meanwhile seismologists who work for USGS have studied the records and found an increase in global earthquake activity.

The 2010–2014.3 global earthquake rate increase
Tom Parsons 1 and Eric L. Geist 1

1 U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA
...
1. Introduction

Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Given these high rates, along with suggestions that damaging earthquakes may be causatively linked at global distance [e.g., Gomberg and Bodin, 1994; Pollitz et al., 1998; Tzanis and Makropoulos, 2002; Bufe and Perkins, 2005; Gonzalez-Huizar et al., 2012; Pollitz et al., 2012, 2014], we investigate whether there is a significant departure from a random process underlying these rate changes. Recent studies have demonstrated that M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes (and also tsunamis) that occurred since 1900 follow a Poisson process [e.g., Michael, 2011; Geist and Parsons, 2011; Daub et al., 2012; Shearer and Stark, 2012; Parsons and Geist, 2012; Ben-Naim et al., 2013]. Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media [e.g., www.nbcnews.com...]. We extend our analysis to M ≥ 5.0 levels, as many of these lower magnitude events convey significant hazard, and global catalogs have not generally been tested down to these thresholds.

2. Methods and Data

We work with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) catalog of M≥ 5.0 global earthquakes for the period between 1979 and 2014.3 with a primary focus on the recent interval between 2010 and 2014.3 that shows the highest earthquake rates (Table 1 and Figure 1). A variety of tests suggest that the catalog is complete down to magnitudes between M=4.6 and M=5.2, depending on the method used to assess it (see supporting information). We examine a range of lower magnitude thresholds above M =5.0 to account for this uncertainty.
...

profile.usgs.gov...

The above link has also been removed by USGS. I am trying to find some other link to the paper.

Anyway, people really need to wake up and realize that this is being done on purpose to deny the fact that Earth is going through dramatic geological and climatic changes which are not being caused by mankind's activity. But why exactly?

Is it being done so "climate change" keeps being used as an excuse to implement a "Global Socialist government to combat climate change"? Is there some other reason why this information is being hidden from the public as much as possible?

A USGS shill?

Only on ATS.

originally posted by: Jefferton
A USGS shill?

Only on ATS.

Yep, there are those you know. Similar to how the Obama administration also hired paid propagandists to post on websites such as this one to dismiss certain stories.

The "Green" agenda will go to great lengths to cover-up anything that goes against the agenda.

And when something is exposed, they will attack with full force.

Big money involved and big plans to control the World population.

😑

Don't be so dramatic.

It is there, M 6.6 - 192km ESE of Tadine, New Caledonia
2018-12-05 06:43:04 (UTC)

originally posted by: MinangATS
Don't be so dramatic.

It is there, M 6.6 - 192km ESE of Tadine, New Caledonia
2018-12-05 06:43:04 (UTC)

No, shills, propaganda, Obama.

originally posted by: MinangATS
Don't be so dramatic.

It is there, M 6.6 - 192km ESE of Tadine, New Caledonia
2018-12-05 06:43:04 (UTC)

The quake was reported as a magnitute 6. Many earthquakes have been occurring in that area and at the same depth of 10 km.

Here is another link reporting it as a magnitute 6.

Magnitude 6 Quake Strikes Off Australia's Norfolk Island – USGS

I gave a link to the original USGS page that showed the quake, but it redirects to an error.

earthquake.usgs.gov... %22%2C%22listFormat%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B-38.75408327579141%2C-209.8828125%5D%2C%5B-14.477234210156507%2C-170.5078125%5D%5D% 2C%22overlays%22%3A%5B%22plates%22%5D%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3A%5B%22restrictListToMap%22%5D%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%2 2timezone%22%3A%22utc%22%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%2C%22settings%22%5D%2C%22event%22%3Anull%7D

Here is another link.

Quake of magnitude 6 strikes northeast of Australia’s Norfolk Island: USGS
December 6, 2018 - by Reuters News

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – A shallow earthquake of magnitude 6 struck northeast of Australia’s Norfolk Island on Thursday, the United States Geological Survey said.

There was no immediate tsunami warning and no reports of damage or casualties from the quake, which hit at a depth of 10 km (6 miles), about 681 km (423 miles) northeast of Norfolk Island.

(Reporting by Clarence Fernandez; Editing by Darren Schuettler)

www.worldusheadlines.com...

I know that earthquake magnitudes have been upgraded or downgraded in the past, but normally they just update the page. In this case the page for this particular earthquake simply comes up as an error.

Not to mention the fact that when an earthquake's magnitude is upgraded, or downgraded news sites also update the magnitude of the quake, and no news site that reported this quake has updated the magnitude. So we are talking about two different earthquakes.

Here is a list of other earthquakes in that area that USGS is still reporting.

Link

Several quakes occurred exactly at 10km depth. But the magnitude 6 earthquake is not even in this list. Who knows what other quakes are not being reported/have been erased.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's the same quake, news sites rarely update their original report once a quake has been reviewed by seismologists.

As far as the 10km depths you see many quakes listed as, that is a default depth assigned by the auto-location algorithms and are only for reference purposes. Once a quake has been reviewed, a correct depth is then assigned.

EMSC has it listed as a 6..7:

Magnitude Mw 6.7
Region SOUTHEAST OF LOYALTY ISLANDS
Date time 2018-12-05 06:43:08.9 UTC
Location 21.84 S ; 169.75 E
Depth 10 km
Distances 343 km E of Nouméa, New Caledonia / pop: 93,100 / local time: 17:43:08.9 2018-12-05
258 km S of Isangel, Vanuatu / pop: 1,500 / local time: 17:43:08.9 2018-12-05
196 km E of Tadine, New Caledonia / pop: 7,500 / local time: 17:43:08.9 2018-12-05

GFZ has it at 6.5:

F-E Region: Southeast of Loyalty Islands
Mw Beach Ball
Time: 2018-12-05 06:43:08.1 UTC
Magnitude: 6.5 (Mw)
Epicenter: 169.72°E 21.90°S Geohack coords
Depth: 10 km
Status: C - confirmed

Autolocated quakes are often modified once reviewed. All majorr reporting agencies list this at 10km in depth which tells me that there are not a lot of stations close enough in order to get a good read on the depth of the hypocenter. You see this often with quakes in remote areas.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It may be possible news sites did not update the quake, but USGS would list the original magnitude and the updated magnitude. Yet we don't see that on this earthquake.

For example.

www.usgs.gov...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What do you think is the purpose of erasing information about quakes, and why only a couple here and there, what do you think they are hiding?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What do you think is the purpose of erasing information about quakes, and why only a couple here and there, what do you think they are hiding?

What do you think would happen if USGS were to admit officially that global earthquake activity has been increasing, and is still increasing with no hint so far of this activity slowing down?

We have seen old areas where no earthquakes had been felt for thousands of years suddenly start to pick up earthquake activity.

Such as:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I think it would be a blip, a soundbite people will just continue watching Operah and drinking the kool-aid.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It wouldn't be a blip. If it was officially endorsed a lot more people would find out and figure out what this means if the trend continues.

Officially the only "doom" accepted is the "claim that mankind has caused Climate Change." It does two things, it gives hope that if mankind caused it, then mankind should be able to mitigate it or stop it, and it helps the rich leftists become richer at the expense of the rest of us.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Took me literally 2 seconds to find the paper.

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

But I guess that if you did want to link to it, you wouldn’t because USGS shills would then read the conclusion....

A strong increase in the number of global earthquakes is noted since 2010 that appears to have accelerated during the first quarter of 2014. However, there is no evidence that this increase represents a departure from temporally independent earthquake occurrence, as many of these earthquakes are local aftershocks of prior events. While some studies have concluded that specific large earthquakes have had a significant impact on global M ≥ 5.0 seismicity since 2010, we cannot find a strong signal associated with global M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes that rises above the random fluctuations that are observed between regular 48 h periods; the largest rate increases we see are not associated with global main shocks (Figure 2). This is quantified here at the M ≥ 5.6 level because a temporally independent Poisson process governing the distribution of these earthquakes cannot be ruled out at 95% confidence, even with a wide range of local declustering and binning parameters. If M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes have significant global influence on other moderate to large events (M ≥ 5.6), then the catalog should be overdispersed well outside local aftershock zones. We do note apparent dependent clustering below this magnitude threshold that cannot be explained by local aftershocks or swarms.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Took me literally 2 seconds to find the paper.

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

But I guess that if you did want to link to it, you wouldn’t because USGS shills would then read the conclusion....

A strong increase in the number of global earthquakes is noted since 2010 that appears to have accelerated during the first quarter of 2014. However, there is no evidence that this increase represents a departure from temporally independent earthquake occurrence, as many of these earthquakes are local aftershocks of prior events. While some studies have concluded that specific large earthquakes have had a significant impact on global M ≥ 5.0 seismicity since 2010, we cannot find a strong signal associated with global M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes that rises above the random fluctuations that are observed between regular 48 h periods; the largest rate increases we see are not associated with global main shocks (Figure 2). This is quantified here at the M ≥ 5.6 level because a temporally independent Poisson process governing the distribution of these earthquakes cannot be ruled out at 95% confidence, even with a wide range of local declustering and binning parameters. If M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes have significant global influence on other moderate to large events (M ≥ 5.6), then the catalog should be overdispersed well outside local aftershock zones. We do note apparent dependent clustering below this magnitude threshold that cannot be explained by local aftershocks or swarms.

Naa, that isn't "shills", that's just "people who don't want to accept this increase in activity" because they can't even understand what they are reading. Simply because these USGS seismologists cannot find if this increase in activity is out of the norm, it doesn't mean there is no increase in activity. It just means they can't find whether this is normal or not...

...
Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979–present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media [e.g., www.nbcnews.com...‐earthquakes‐illusion‐raises‐new‐questions‐n85826]. We extend our analysis to M ≥ 5.0 levels, as many of these lower magnitude events convey significant hazard, and global catalogs have not generally been tested down to these thresholds.
...

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Heck, you obviously became blind by one small fact that you even put on bold...

A strong increase in the number of global earthquakes is noted since 2010 that appears to have accelerated during the first quarter of 2014. However, there is no evidence that this increase represents a departure from temporally independent earthquake occurrence, as many of these earthquakes are local aftershocks of prior events.
...

a reply to: Chadwickus

As a matter of fact, it is no coincidence that in the first quarter of 2014 when we"experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate we also saw Earth's magnetic field weakening 10 times faster.

Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster

These events are linked.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

OMG they said INCREASE!

All the other words around it like “no evidence” just disappear huh?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

OMG they said INCREASE!

All the other words around it like “no evidence” just disappear huh?

OMG, they said they can't find whether this is normal or not... All other statements about the activity increasing, such as the activity of magnitude 7 earthquakes increasing 65%, and the activity of magnitude 5 earthquakes increasing by 35% "suddenly disappear" because... "Chadwickus" says so...