quick reaction
Posted by John Vidale on October 02, 2004 at 08:03:42:

Interesting, but one has to close one eye to call these hits.

If Petra put on an upper limit of 4.8, she would have to say she can't estimate magnitude well. And as she probably read Tim's post before making her own, the two are not strictly independent.

As for Tim, Parkfield is in central, not northern California, it didn't happen at 2am but rather at 10am. Did he give a magnitude or a magnitude range?

KB has had a number of near misses recently, and you're not reading about them in the papers because he is counting those strictly as misses.

It is intriguing, and I must admit the main reason I'm skeptical is the lack of a physical model for how an impending earthquake would set off acoustic waves one could hear. Parkfield had no precursory strain that the extensive instrumentation there could detect.

John


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: quick reaction - Tim   12:39:50 - 10/2/2004  (23174)  (1)
        ● quite a coincidence - John Vidale  23:20:45 - 10/2/2004  (23180)  (0)
     ● Re: quick reaction - Question for John - Canie  09:24:22 - 10/2/2004  (23171)  (1)
        ● haven't heard - John Vidale  23:25:24 - 10/2/2004  (23181)  (0)