Jul 2004
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2004eostr..85..283w&link_type=abstract
EOS Transactions, AGU, Volume 85, Issue 30, p. 283-286
Computer Science
Forum, Seismology: Seismic Hazard Assessment And Prediction, Seismology: Earthquake Ground Motions And Engineering
Scientific paper
In our Eos article of 18 November 2003, we were trying to address how geoscientists, especially seismologists, fully and understandably communicate their products and the associated uncertainty not only to themselves, but also to laypersons. The Comment by C. H. Cramer on our article seems to miss the point. We did not criticize probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), but tried to point out some of its limitations, because these limitations have significant implications. We do not understand why in his comments Cramer is trying to compare PSHA with deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA). Our paper did not discuss DSHA at all. Of course, some of the limitations apply equally to DSHA, but not all. Cramer's comments could cause additional confusion.
Kiefer John D.
Shi Baoping
Wang Zhenming
Woolery Edward W.
No associations
LandOfFree
Reply does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Reply, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Reply will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1009478