Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Babe Ruth and earthquake hazard maps
From phys.org:
[center]
[/center]
Comparison of Japanese national earthquake hazard map (top) to uniform and randomized versions. The map predicts the level of shaking, shown by colors from red (highest) to white (least) expected to be exceeded at 5% of the sites on the map in the next 50 years. Surprisingly, by the most commonly used measure, the uniform and randomized maps work better than the published maps. Credit: Seth Stein, Northwestern University.
[hr]
...
Earthquake hazard maps use assumptions about where, when, and how big future earthquakes will be to predict the level of shaking. The results are used in designing earthquake-resistant buildings. However, as the study's lead author, earth science and statistics graduate student Edward Brooks, explains "sometimes the maps do well, and sometimes they do poorly. In particular, the shaking and thus damage in some recent large earthquakes was much larger than expected."
Part of the problem is that seismologists have not developed ways to describe how well these maps perform. As Seth Stein, William Deering Professor of Geological Sciences explains "we need the kind of information the weather service has, where they can tell you how much confidence to have in their forecasts."
The question is how to measure performance. Bruce Spencer, professor of statistics, explains that "it's like asking how good a baseball player Babe Ruth was. The answer depends on how one measures performance. In many seasons Ruth led the league in both home runs and in the number of times he struck out. By one measure he did very well, and by another, very poorly. In the same way, we are using several measures to describe how hazard maps perform."
more ...
[/center]
Comparison of Japanese national earthquake hazard map (top) to uniform and randomized versions. The map predicts the level of shaking, shown by colors from red (highest) to white (least) expected to be exceeded at 5% of the sites on the map in the next 50 years. Surprisingly, by the most commonly used measure, the uniform and randomized maps work better than the published maps. Credit: Seth Stein, Northwestern University.
[hr]
...
Earthquake hazard maps use assumptions about where, when, and how big future earthquakes will be to predict the level of shaking. The results are used in designing earthquake-resistant buildings. However, as the study's lead author, earth science and statistics graduate student Edward Brooks, explains "sometimes the maps do well, and sometimes they do poorly. In particular, the shaking and thus damage in some recent large earthquakes was much larger than expected."
Part of the problem is that seismologists have not developed ways to describe how well these maps perform. As Seth Stein, William Deering Professor of Geological Sciences explains "we need the kind of information the weather service has, where they can tell you how much confidence to have in their forecasts."
The question is how to measure performance. Bruce Spencer, professor of statistics, explains that "it's like asking how good a baseball player Babe Ruth was. The answer depends on how one measures performance. In many seasons Ruth led the league in both home runs and in the number of times he struck out. By one measure he did very well, and by another, very poorly. In the same way, we are using several measures to describe how hazard maps perform."
more ...