VOLCANO MADNESS: Re: [Geology2] Earthquake risk has not risen

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Re: [Geology2] Earthquake risk has not risen

Hey, until it gets so bad I can't read it, I stay away from correcting folks. I've been called Ms. Correctal one too many times. LOL

Lin

Ya'll all be safe and have a happy Thanksgiving--from Joey, Sissy, & Lin who will be stuffing themselves silly on a big crockpot cooked turkey breast. Mmmmmm mmm

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Rick Bates <HappyMoosePhoto@gmail.com> wrote:

T'so'kay. I used the wrong version of your and it wasn't caught.

Happy T-day, enjoy the days off.

Rick

From: geology2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:geology2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Noyes
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 6:07 PM
To: geology2@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Geology2] Earthquake risk has not risen

I'm on vacation from school and don't have to use proper grammar until next Monday.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Rick Bates <HappyMoosePhoto@gmail.com> wrote:

CausAtive is the correct spelling; occurrences should be plural; does should be singular.

You're turn Lin; you're the English Prof. ;-p

Rick

From: geology2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:geology2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lynne Gardiner
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:41 PM
To: geology2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Geology2] Earthquake risk has not risen

Ah, now I get it )LOL)

From: geology2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:geology2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Noyes
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 3:13 AM
To: geology2@yahoogroups.com; California's Earthquake Forum
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Earthquake risk has not risen

I miss-worded that... meant to say I'm not convinced there can't be a causitive association which generates a frequency of occurrence that does not exceed randomness and thus is hard or impossible to trace when merely depending upon statistical analysis.

Kimmer

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Allison Loukanis <allison.m.loukanis@att.net> wrote:

Wow Kim...what big words you use! lol...Allison

From: Kim Noyes <kimnoyes@gmail.com>
To: geology2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Earthquake risk has not risen

I'm still not convinced because there can still be a causitive association that manifests itself in a fashion that does not exceed apparent randomness.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Lin Kerns <linkerns@gmail.com> wrote:

Earthquake risk has not risen

16 November 2011
Nature 479

A spate of large earthquakes has shaken the world in recent years, with five reaching a magnitude greater than 8.5 since 2004. This has led some to question whether earthquakes come in clusters, and whether, at present, the risk of large quakes is temporarily above the norm. But Andrew Michael of the US Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, shows that apparent clusters of large quakes in the global record are indistinguishable from random variability.

He applied three classes of statistical tests to earthquakes of magnitude greater than 7 that have occurred since 1900, and omitted the localized aftershocks connected to each quake. He demonstrates that similar clusters would still be found if the quakes were independent, random events occurring at a low but constant average rate. He concludes that the risk of future earthquakes has not increased, except within ongoing aftershock sequences.

source

--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
Read my blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim