Re: Parkfield 4.5
Posted by Skywise on August 06, 2012 at 21:08:23:

Except, that segment just broke only in 2004 - 8 years ago. Isn't that a little short to have built up enough strain for it's usual M6ish quakes?

Or, maybe there is enough, and in 2004 there was MORE than enough, and maybe there's some unknown mechanism at work that actually limits Parkfield segments to breaking in no more than M6, and therefore 2004 did not release all the strain and now it's getting back in sync? (yeah, a rambling sentence)

Brian


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Parkfield 4.5 - PennyB  16:43:34 - 8/10/2012  (80061)  (0)
     ● Re: Parkfield 4.5 - Island Chris  06:15:46 - 8/8/2012  (80050)  (0)
     ● Re: Parkfield 4.5 - Steve S/SF  21:18:38 - 8/6/2012  (80040)  (1)
        ● Re: Parkfield 4.5 - Skywise  00:37:40 - 8/7/2012  (80041)  (1)
           ● Re: Parkfield 4.5 - Steve S /SF  20:33:53 - 8/7/2012  (80042)  (1)
              ● Re: Parkfield 4.5 - Skywise  23:28:40 - 8/7/2012  (80043)  (2)
                 ● Re: Parkfield 4.5 - steve s /sf  23:00:52 - 8/10/2012  (80062)  (1)
                    ● Re: Parkfield 4.5 - Skywise  23:59:46 - 8/10/2012  (80063)  (0)
                 ● Thanks for pointing that out. - Steve S/ SF  00:58:23 - 8/8/2012  (80046)  (0)