|
|
|
|
|
|
by mturmon
189 days ago
|
|
|
For real: Earth science is complex. When you have domain experts literally saying the opposite of your guesses, in a section of an outreach webpage devoted to "Myths," reconsider your position. (Related, and profound apologies for the fb.com link: https://www.facebook.com/DLJCSS/posts/small-quakes-do-not-pr...) (Source: Work with Earth science domain experts in $dayjob, and am often surprised when my basic intuitive arguments turn out to be wrong.) |
|
|
Your link addresses a different claim than the one I made. So far we have release of stress (true by definition), statistical correlation (foreshocks and aftershocks), and reduction of a future event (your link).
As to objections about relative quantities, earthquake swarms exist. I think it's going to be just about impossible to make claims that are correct while also being applicable to all scenarios. A more limited claim that a particular quake or activity in a particular region does not exhibit a certain sort of relationship is going to be much more defensible.