earofwood的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/earofwood



已有 5368 次阅读 2013-4-23 18:34 |系统分类:海外观察| 加州大学, 芦山地震, 圣巴巴拉





Hi, Jiuhui and Jing

How are you?

I received this request today but didn't response as I smell some politics inside. But it

does make me curious about why the folks in your institute (also CEA) insist this is not an aftershock???



Hi Chen,

we have been debating among ourselves whether it is an aftershock, or a standalone quake, regardless of the positive static stress influence. i guess the public is more interested in the implication of whether it is an aftershock or not, rather than a pure scientific quest.

Jiuhui may disagree with me and probably you too, but my opinion is both yes and no. yes, in the sense that by one aftershock definition, events occur within one rupture length distance from the mainshock fault in the years after the main shock can be considered as aftershocks. The definition treats earthquakes as faceless statistics. no, in the sense, that different structure (i believe a reverse fault was activated, basinward from those broke in 2008 wenchuan eq) in Lushan earthquake, and it has its own aftershock sequence with abnormally high number so far. i am more inclined to the second opinion.

i am surprised that XX is indeed strongly opinionated and biased. what good will it do to play the blame game? many people are like this. people doing earthquake research in China are like rats in the street. this appears to be our destiny, sadly.



Jing, ok, this reminds me the debate when Morgan Page presented her results at SCEC. Geophysicists and geologists view the aftershock differently. What I felt in watching this chaos is the lack of communication. CEA should put the definition of aftershocks online. I also read an article which blamed the work of Zhengkang without any scientific background.

Jiuhui also mentioned the abnormal aftershock sequence. As I heard, this rupture didn't break the surface. It is then very similar to 1994 Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake. Another conclusion for that earthquake is the abnormal large damage, which seems to be also consistent with this earthquake. There is a hypothesis that blinding thrust will have larger damage than the similar size earthquakes which break the surface.

Hopefully this will help you in explaining this earthquake.




Hi Chen, in fact I just wrote a sciencenet blog comparing the Lushan and northridge eq. you have a good point regarding the severe damage. We have similar thoughts about lack of voice in media communication. Most of my colleagues, including myself, are either afraid of or reluctant in speaking out.


收藏 IP: 210.72.25.*| 热度|

5 曹聪 陈龙珠 陈小斌 zdlh zjfcsu

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (5 个评论)


Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-7-25 16:00

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社