So I guess I'm going to attempt to send synthesize three days of amazing things in 5 mins.
And of course, if I synthesize it, it's going to be towards my own personal obsessions and biases.
But let me start by saying, sort of what next steps are.
For those of you who are interested in velocity models,
don't forget that there is going to be a whole workshop on the San Francisco Bay Area velocity model coming up on the 14th of February, and maybe if Evan Hirakawa or Brad Aagaard is here, they want to put a registration link in the chat so people know
that's coming up. For people who stuck around for the SCEC breakout session
we decided that sort of our next coordination in terms of the SCEC expansion into northern California would be to identify people who are
interested in community modeling, in either northern or southern California,
or both, to come together and start augmenting a workshop for June.
So, if you all are interested in being involved in that, or if you know someone who'd like to be in, or you would like to volunteer them to be involved, please send me an email and we will get them roped into things. And then we hold a session about internships and funding and there will
be opportunities coming up. We will try and get videos of that and have the whole workshop distributed so that you can refer to things.
And hopefully, you all will be using the cool information you learned in this workshop to inspire student projects and also to apply for our external grants program.
The guidelines, which will be coming out soon and is supposed to be shaped by what we learned here.
So what did we learn here? Okay, so I want to hear what all of you think we heard,
but personally, some things I heard a lot of interesting discussions about
how does what we see at the surface reflect what's going on with faults at depth?
I know that sounds like an oldie but goodie, but we hold them so many different ways in so many different contexts, and on so many different length scales from comparing surface faults all the way down to shear
zones between the Pacific plate and the North American plate. Discussions about the Ferndale earthquake in terms of is this a fault
gap. Is this faulting happening in the North America plate or the Pacific plate?
And does it have any relationship to the surface faulting structure in the Triple Junction Area to shallower discussions of changes of seismicity and fault structural flower structures over just the very shallow most part of the Geysers.
To understand geology over the scale of putting a transit tunnel in San Jose to finally barely find zero changes between what we observe at the earth surface and what we see going on between creepmeters and boreholes inchronmeters so really that thought dimension in so many different
contexts and on so many different scales, really does seem to be something that is still at the forefront.
So I was struck by how much as geodesy becomes older it paradoxically becomes more exciting because we now have geodetic time series, and we are all making geodag models that go into the fourth dimension, and because of that we can now discuss things like does creep
accelerate or evolve over time, as we've heard from Rowland and Kai.
I heard a lot of interesting things about some of these more moderate magnitude
earthquakes, both in terms of how important they offer a hazard and damage perspective, because we did just live through the managing 6.4 Ferndale earthquake, but also how useful
they are from a scientific perspective. For example, with Evan talking about how they can be used to test and update the velocity model, I think that's also sort of a really important discussion point, because we've also talked a lot about the Bay Area.
And, in fact, in the last series of talks, more sort of explicitly said,
but what should we consider to be the Bay Area and that's actually a really interesting question
because even if we think that like the most important hazard is in the area which is most populous, which is not necessarily true, because, as we just saw at the Mendocino Triple Junction, there's a lot of seismic hazards there, but even if we feel like we really want
to protect the infrastructure. The people in a high population center like the San Francisco Bay Area
that is a living and evolving thing
there has been a lot of spread of population. And so, for example, Artie was talking about the potential hazard of a rupture on the Greenville fault.
Now, definitely, that'll be today versus the last time it happened in 1980, because so many more people live there.
In fact, really the greater Bay Area is now extending into the Central Valley, as people have to live farther and farther away, and commute greater and greater distances, and certainly what that means from an earthquake hazard perspective is that in terms of the ecosystem of the
Bay Area, the faults we're talking about are not just the San Andreas
and Hayward fault systems, but all the faults that go through the easternmost East Bay, like the Greenville and Green Valley fault, basically all the way out to the Great Valley Block
and that means that we need to understand the hazard across that entire region and understand the hazard of the more moderate magnitude
that those size faults are capable of producing.
And there's also a really an important equity consideration there
because of course, the people who are at risk from those sources, or this disproportionately, a different class of, and poor group of people than those who can afford to live in the innermost Bay Area.
I heard a lot about uncertainty quantification in the last session, and that is something that makes me very happy.
I'd love to talk about uncertainty quantification, and I think that is something that is very important for us to understand
better going forward. I noticed that with the exception of, for example, John Louie's talk or David Chaff's talk, we didn't really hear about Northeastern most California or Parkfield, and we need to make sure that we don't forget any place.
Don't leave anyone behind. And most importantly, probably, we need to be talking a whole lot more about the Mendocino Triple Junction.
It is a busy, busy area, and Lori Dengler, giving two thumbs up, and finally, as Eric has said and John has said, the most important thing we have learned is that
earthquake scientists hate trees, would like to drain San Pablo Bay, and have very, you know, interesting interpretations of child labor laws.
Is there anything else that people took away from this workshop that they think that we need to focus on more that they like to see incorporated into the call for research proposals coming up?
Annemarie says hats.
Hey, Sarah, it's Larry Collins. One quick question are we able to get a hold of the recording of this we could share with others?
Yes, but it's gonna take awhile because we have to do clearance, and review and wow, we think we have captioning taken care of, but let's not count on that until we have check that out totally.
Okay. Thanks.
So. Yes, but not immediately. But don't forget about it. It will come.
Great session. The whole thing was excellent. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you everybody.
Big round of applause to Sarah. She did a phenomenal job, great job Sarah!