Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
06-16-2015, 11:34 AM
This is vaguely interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/asia/nepal...index.html
Neither quake was right under Everest: the M7.8 was fairly distant. The motions would have been much larger if the quake was under or just south of Everest.
I'm interested because of where GPS-measured shortening is (in north Los Angeles) vs. where an earthquake could rupture to. This is discussed towards the end of my 2013 paper. I posted some cross sections here (Earthwaves) a month or so ago comparing Nepal and Los Angeles.
Chris
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/asia/nepal...index.html
Neither quake was right under Everest: the M7.8 was fairly distant. The motions would have been much larger if the quake was under or just south of Everest.
I'm interested because of where GPS-measured shortening is (in north Los Angeles) vs. where an earthquake could rupture to. This is discussed towards the end of my 2013 paper. I posted some cross sections here (Earthwaves) a month or so ago comparing Nepal and Los Angeles.
Chris