1. Comment on 'Statistical Analyses of Great Earthquake Recurrence along the Cascadia Subduction Zone' by Ram Kulkarni, Ivan Wong, Judith Zachariasen, Chris Goldfinger, and Martin Lawrence
- Author
-
A. G. Lindh
- Subjects
Geophysics ,Seismic hazard ,010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences ,Subduction ,Geochemistry and Petrology ,Statistical analyses ,Statistical analysis ,010502 geochemistry & geophysics ,01 natural sciences ,Seismology ,Geology ,0105 earth and related environmental sciences - Abstract
Kulkarni et al. (2013; hereafter, Kulkarni2013) present a detailed statistical analysis of records of possible repeat great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone, offshore of Vancouver Island, Washington, Oregon, and northern California. The data set they analyze is derived from turbidite cores collected off the Washington, Oregon, and northern California coasts (Goldfinger et al. , 2012; hereafter, Goldfinger2012). They conclude that there is a 65% probability that the data are in fact clustered, as previous authors have speculated. This means that the cluster hypothesis does not meet the usual 95% threshold for acceptance of a hypothesis, although they then engage in a fairly complicated second‐order analysis which concludes the data are significantly clustered. They acknowledge that this may not be a unique interpretation, and essentially invite alternative models. > We recognize that the total reliance on the interpretations of Goldfinger et al. (2012) begs the question, would we reach the same conclusions if the turbidite data were interpreted differently by another set of eyes? Although the Goldfinger et al. (2012) study has undergone extensive review, that question cannot be answered until future interpretations become available. (Kulkarni2013, p. 16) What follows is my attempt to present an alternative interpretation, one with rather different implications for the seismic hazard in the Pacific Northwest. (For reference, the top half of fig. 2 from Kulkarni2013 is plotted below as Fig. 1.) Figure 1. Copied from the top half of figure 2 from Kulkarni et al. (2013). The height of each bar reflects the average turbidite mass observed offshore, the width of the bars represents the uncertainty in the time of the events. I have added all four segment B events from Goldfinger et al. (2012), shown here as small open boxes, approximately located. (The height and width of these boxes does not represent turbidite volume or uncertainty.) In summary, my argument …
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF