Re: Alaska quake swarm
Posted by Jane on July 09, 2006 at 05:13:40:

Glen, I agree the lack of early data is a problem. What is your view of the difference in depth of the quakes yesterday? I vision faults like 3-D tuning forks as to how they interrelate to each other. The depth changes is what I will be taking a serious look at today. I would say 179.170-179.340 with a depth of 90-190km would be in the cards with it closer to 179.320. I just can't narrow down NS yet >7.0 in the next week.

Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Alaska quake swarm - Glen  09:03:14 - 7/9/2006  (39225)  (1)
        ● Re: Alaska quake swarm - Cathryn  13:49:31 - 7/9/2006  (39230)  (1)
           ● 1964 - chris in suburbia  15:42:27 - 7/9/2006  (39234)  (2)
              ● Re: 1964 - Cathryn  16:50:24 - 7/9/2006  (39237)  (0)
              ● Re: 1964 - Glen  16:07:34 - 7/9/2006  (39236)  (2)
                 ● Re: 1964 - chris in suburbia  06:24:30 - 7/10/2006  (39248)  (1)
                    ● Re: 1964 - Canie  11:20:54 - 7/10/2006  (39254)  (1)
                       ● Re: 1964 - Glen  13:00:42 - 7/10/2006  (39259)  (1)
                          ● gaps, 1946 - chris in suburbia  14:58:00 - 7/10/2006  (39262)  (2)
                             ● Scotch Cap, Unimak - Glen  22:17:21 - 7/11/2006  (39270)  (2)
                                ● Re: Scotch Cap, Unimak - Jane  03:53:27 - 7/12/2006  (39279)  (2)
                                   ● Re: Scotch Cap, Unimak - Glen  13:03:47 - 7/12/2006  (39294)  (0)
                                   ● Re: Scotch Cap, Unimak - Cathryn  06:26:30 - 7/12/2006  (39285)  (1)
                                      ● Re: Scotch Cap, Unimak - Jane  17:54:33 - 7/12/2006  (39297)  (0)
                                ● Re: Scotch Cap, Unimak - Cathryn  02:08:11 - 7/12/2006  (39276)  (0)
                             ● The past is the past - Cathryn  01:52:52 - 7/11/2006  (39264)  (0)
                 ● Re: 1964 - Cathryn  17:10:58 - 7/9/2006  (39238)  (0)