| Roll & Rock
|
[
Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
21565 |
|
|
Date: July 25, 2020 at 02:29:14
From: Anita, [DNS_Address]
Subject: California region 5.5 to 7+ shortly(NT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[21568] [21572] [21574] |
|
21568 |
|
|
Date: July 25, 2020 at 09:11:23
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: California region 5.5 to 7+ shortly(NT) |
|
|
"California region"
Presumably locations within the boundaries of California
count. But you say region so that implies areas outside
of the state boundaries. How far outside?
Would, for example, the recent quakes near Mina Nevada
count? Or for example, Reno? Las Vegas? Kingman, AZ?
How far from the border? 100 miles? 1000 miles?
Seattle?
"5.5 to 7+"
So the low end is 5.5. Is this a hard boundary? Or will
a 5.4 be accepted? 5.2? 5.0? 4.5?
The high end is completely open ended. "+" means anything
greater than 7, so presumably a 9.0 will still count.
"shortly"
This is wildly vague. My first inclination is within a
week or two AT MOST. What do YOU mean by shortly? One
day? One week? One month? One year? 'Shortly' on what
reference time scale? Minutes is shortly compared to
a year. A year is shortly compared to a millennium. A
thousand years is shortly compared to the age of the
Earth.
I merely point this out to show how vague predictions
do no good. There's too much wiggle room for argument
about whether a result is acceptable as a hit or not.
It is VERY important to be precise so as to leave no
ambiguity.
It could be claimed that a 9.0 Cascadia quake on August
23rd could be claimed as a hit. It's only a month away,
is within the magnitude range, and a quake that large
although possibly nucleating near Vancouver Canada will
still cause shaking within California proper, thus
affecting the California region. Would you claim that
as a hit? Would I? (no). Would Roger? (pretty sure he'd
say no) Would others?
Precision is important for evaluation of the results.
The evaluation is important to determine if the method
is effective. Wouldn't a quake predictor want to know
how well they are really doing in order to improve upon
their method? It's in their own interest is it not?
It matters not HOW the boundaries are defined, so long
as they ARE defined.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[21572] [21574] |
|
21572 |
|
|
Date: July 25, 2020 at 12:59:29
From: Anita, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: California region 5.5 to 7+ shortly(NT) |
|
|
Gulf of California
25.77N 109.94W
Max timeframe: 7 days
magnitude range: 5.5 to 6.5
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[21574] |
|
21574 |
|
|
Date: July 25, 2020 at 22:06:30
From: EQF, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: California region 5.5 to 7+ shortly(NT) |
|
|
Posted by EQF on July 25, 2020
My data are pointing to some possible approaching seismic activity around perhaps 118 W. I should have a chart related to this perhaps Monday. At the moment I don't have any Time Window or magnitude data.
On my Web site there are fairly complete listings of all earthquakes that produced at least one fatality going from the present back to the start of 1973.
There are no fatal earthquakes in those listings for the area you mentioned. That suggests that if there is an earthquake at that location, so far, there are no records in my data to indicate that it might be highly destructive.
However, I have numerous entries for destructive earthquakes in the 118 W area and around 35 N.
Regards,
EQF
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ] |