4 ms·
This is not a great analysis, and is kind of confusing. Things will improve, the law of math promises it. Ah well, if a mathematician says the law of math p
by jjwiseman 12y ago
This is not a great analysis, and is kind of confusing.
Things will improve, the law of math promises it.
Ah well, if a mathematician says the law of math promises it!
See Omori's law (and Båth's Law and the Gutenberg–Richter law), and the roughly 5% chance that this quake was a foreshock for an even bigger quake ("the 2002 Sumatra earthquake is regarded as a foreshock of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake with a delay of more than two years between the two events")
- smoyer 12y agoBut that contradicts the statements of a trained mathematician! </sarcasm> I'm not sure that "NASA / BBC / America" are trained seismologists, but if they're simply reporting the predictions of someone who really understands the conditions of the subduction zone in the Katmandu area, I'd tend to believe what they're saying.
- NZ_Matt 12y agoAgreed. Earthquakes are extremly unpredictable, the best we have is the USGS models and even then they provide very little information. In Christchurch, New Zealand the M6.3 aftershock in February 2011 was far more destructive than the initial M7.2 event that occured 5 months earlier. This was because the epicenter of the February aftershock was significantly closer to the city and populated areas. Looking at the Nepal aftershock sequence map [1] it is a concern that many of the aftershocks are located closer to the populated areas. I really hope that Nepal has had the worst of it but it would be a mistake to rule out the possibility of another major event. [1] http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-fg-g-nepal-map-quakes-and-aftershocks-20150425-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-fg-g-nepal-map-qu...