Note from a local seismologist in So. California
Posted by Lowell on October 29, 2001 at 17:56:06:

Following are some thoughts from a seismologist in the Pasadena area on the
latest earthquakes in southern California. Does anyone have any messages
they would like to send back to this person, who for various reasons cannot
be identifed here.

Okay, most of the scattered seismicity around the Compton activity turned out to
be mislocations. The arrivals are really terrible due to the urban nature of
that part of the network.

The quekes are still deep, however. Deeper than I've ever seen in LA Basin.
Not sure what is going on down there. This activity also seems to be highly
correlated with solar activity, don't you agree?

Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - 2cents  00:31:33 - 10/30/2001  (10478)  (1)
        ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Canie  08:54:06 - 10/30/2001  (10483)  (1)
           ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - 2cents  14:43:43 - 10/31/2001  (10549)  (1)
              ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Canie  19:53:38 - 10/31/2001  (10562)  (0)
     ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Canie  20:42:51 - 10/29/2001  (10474)  (1)
        ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Lowell  21:32:25 - 10/29/2001  (10475)  (1)
           ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Canie  08:52:00 - 10/30/2001  (10482)  (1)
              ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Lowell  09:05:20 - 10/30/2001  (10486)  (2)
                 ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - 2cents  09:57:41 - 10/30/2001  (10492)  (1)
                    ● Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  12:37:37 - 10/30/2001  (10495)  (2)
                       ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - 2cents  00:38:18 - 10/31/2001  (10518)  (1)
                          ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  06:57:14 - 10/31/2001  (10521)  (1)
                             ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - 2cents  14:22:22 - 10/31/2001  (10547)  (1)
                                ● Re: water consumption - Canie  08:55:44 - 11/1/2001  (10566)  (1)
                                   ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  23:21:01 - 11/1/2001  (10589)  (1)
                                      ● Re: water consumption - Canie  08:45:44 - 11/2/2001  (10606)  (1)
                                         ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  09:53:24 - 11/2/2001  (10614)  (1)
                                            ● Re: water consumption - Canie  11:27:17 - 11/2/2001  (10618)  (1)
                                               ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  22:24:12 - 11/3/2001  (10686)  (0)
                       ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Roger Hunter  12:55:07 - 10/30/2001  (10498)  (1)
                          ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  13:44:49 - 10/30/2001  (10499)  (0)
                 ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Canie  09:18:41 - 10/30/2001  (10489)  (1)
                    ● Yes, that's the one NT - Lowell  09:31:07 - 10/30/2001  (10490)  (0)