Re: Question to the group.

"George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
<snip>
> > > with whom you conduct such speculation.
> >
> > And usenet is way to regulated and restrictive for open discussions, I
> > gather?
> >
>
> You were suggesting that their magnitude numbers invalidated the research,

No. I was suggesting that the reduction of tsunami records to earthquake
magnitude assume a simple transfer of energy by displacement. While valid
for simple earthquakes, it depends on the *aassumption* that there was NO
landslip. Since we can neither assume there WAS a landslip, nor that there
was NOT a landslip before doing an actual survey, the study should either
consider the point or clarify that the assumption.


> while I pointed out that they may be using conservative numbers for a
> reason.

They don't use 'conservative numbers', so much as modelling, which is
garbage in = garbage out if the mechanism of generation of the tsunamis is
not as they model. Given that such large magnitude and displacement
earthquakes are not characteristic even of the one in five hundred year
megaquake, it suggests that there may be a flaw in the papers conclusions
based on NOT considering this point.