Hi Petra. When was there ever a time when you and I agreed on anything all of the time?

However the seismic gap theory does seem apply to subduction quakes. This observation has been explained by plate tectonics and uniform loading models (e.g., Scholz, 1990). It then follows that segment of subduction zones that has not ruptured in the current cycle is the most likely place for an earthquake to occur. Such a place is called “seismic gap”. Fedotov (1965) first pointed out seismic gaps in the Kamchatka-Kuril subduction zone. Sykes (1971) studied the recurrence of great earthquakes in the Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone. He showed that the most recent sequence began in 1938 and has ruptured almost the entire region by five great earthquakes. Sykes then pointed out several gaps between the source regions of these events.

On the basis of seismic gap theory, probability for next earthquake can be estimated. Nishenko (1991) estimated seismic potential for about 100 segments around the circum-Pacific region for the time period of 1989-1999. He used historical data and tsunami data, in addition to modern seismological analysis, to make this estimate. This “forecast” has been critically tested by Kagan and Jackson (1995), who showed that Nishenko forecasted too many “characteristic earthquakes” than actually observed. The concept of “characteristic earthquakes” was first introduced by Schwartz and Coppersmith (1992) from paleoseismological work to model slip distribution for different event along a fault, but more often used as opposed to a fractal distribution of earthquakes. In this report, it refers to a “typical” earthquake in subduction zones.

As you can see there are two conflicting views here, but there are also conflicting views to “strike slip quakes.” Take Care…Don in creepy town.

• Subduction Zone Earthquakes