|
Re: science or prediction posts should not be removed |
Chris, I have read the posts below now. I believe that the prediction should be based on the energy of the seismic event. The larger the energy, the longer time available. If somebody wishes to predict 3,4 or 5 magnitude quakes, they should have a narrow window of time. If the magnitude is much larger, as I did here earlier this year (Alaska 7+), I feel that should be granted more latitude. The larger quakes are rare, and are very hard to predict. Also, the larger the quake, the input for the basis must be greater. I like mr rabbits idea of basis being given... that is fundumental. I also think there should be a "post mortem" Sincerely, Follow Ups: ● Re: science or prediction posts should not be removed - glen 20:54:55 - 11/6/2005 (30144) (2) ● How did you DO that??? - Roger Hunter 21:27:59 - 11/6/2005 (30147) (1) ● Not What I Meant, Roger - glen 10:55:50 - 11/7/2005 (30158) (2) ● Re: Posting URLs - Canie 16:29:20 - 11/7/2005 (30168) (1) ● Thanks Canie! nt - glen 21:38:02 - 11/7/2005 (30174) (0) ● Re: Not What I Meant, Roger - marc / berkeley 12:04:32 - 11/7/2005 (30160) (1) ● Re: Not What I Meant, Roger - glen 14:20:16 - 11/7/2005 (30166) (1) ● Re: kidding, but Roger may shed some light here - marc / berkeley 09:28:04 - 11/8/2005 (30183) (1) ● Re: kidding, but Roger may shed some light here - Roger Hunter 12:32:54 - 11/8/2005 (30185) (0) ● Re: science or prediction posts should not be removed - Don in Hollister 21:09:20 - 11/6/2005 (30146) (2) ● Re: science or prediction posts should not be removed - glen 10:43:26 - 11/7/2005 (30156) (1) ● Re: science or prediction posts should not be removed - Michael Tolchard 20:51:45 - 11/8/2005 (30199) (0) ● Re: science or prediction posts should not be removed - marc / berkeley 08:12:49 - 11/7/2005 (30154) (0) |
|