Timeline for How do they know the 2016 Kaikoura (NZ) Earthquake was 'complex', involved six different faults?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Dec 30, 2016 at 20:24 | history | suggested | Ken Graham | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improved formatting.
|
| Dec 30, 2016 at 18:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 30, 2016 at 20:24 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2016 at 12:41 | history | edited | stali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 22, 2016 at 12:40 | history | edited | stali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 88 characters in body
|
| Nov 22, 2016 at 12:01 | vote | accept | uhoh | ||
| Nov 22, 2016 at 12:01 | comment | added | uhoh | OK I understand I think - the inverse problem is something like "what distribution of slipping along known faults would - when modeled - result in a distribution of topography changes that best matches those seen in satellite radar data?" So, without motion across multiple faults, the changes in ground height can't be matched with a given physics model. Excellent answer! You might add an explanatory link to InSAR, but this is exactly what I needed. Thanks! | |
| Nov 22, 2016 at 11:46 | history | answered | stali | CC BY-SA 3.0 |