|
Re: Steve's Parkfield Prediction Failed |
Yep. Took a stab at it here based on data conditions a few months ago. The posting is here. Data conditions changed shortly after I posted (EQ caused a strain release), but the current conditions are greater than they were when I posted. Also in the last 30 days, the X461 creepmeter recorded movement not related to an EQ (at least that USGS hasn't posted). As for the other physical basis, the tensor strainmeters, both the 30 day andthe 7 day at Parkfield are showing an increase in strain larger than it was in October. I am saying that I agree that EQ's come from all sorts of sources and mechanisms. Each technique will detect a certain type of motion. As for Shan. I respect his results and I respect his methods. Does he have 100% accuracy, no. Does he detect certain types of data that accurately corrolate with certain results, absolutely. We all have one piece of the puzzle, and one single method is not going to work 100% of the time. I am convinced that overlapping methods from different viewpoints will produce results.
Follow Ups: ● Re: Comment on tensor strain - Steve S/ SF 22:40:10 - 12/3/2006 (60860) (1) ● Re: Comment on tensor strain - Cathryn 23:11:53 - 12/3/2006 (60871) (1) ● Re: Comment on tensor strain - Steve S/ SF 23:24:52 - 12/3/2006 (60873) (0) |
|