Hmm I strongly read it as focussed on magnitude 7. Eg In the paper they focus on magnitude 7 eruptions, and the 1⁄6 this century probability: “The last magnitude-7 event was in Tambora, Indonesia, in 1815.” / “Given the estimated recurrence rate for a magnitude-7 event, this equates to more than US$1 billion per year.” This would be corroborated by their thread, Forum post, and previouswork, which emphasise 7 & 1⁄6.
Sorry to be annoying/pedantic about this. I’m being pernickety as I view a key thrust of their research as distinguishing 7 from 8. We can’t just group magnitude 7 (1/6 chance) along with magnitude 8 and write them off as a teeny 1⁄14,000 chance. We need to distinguish 7 from 8, consider their severity/probability seperately, and prioritise them differently.
Hmm I strongly read it as focussed on magnitude 7. Eg In the paper they focus on magnitude 7 eruptions, and the 1⁄6 this century probability: “The last magnitude-7 event was in Tambora, Indonesia, in 1815.” / “Given the estimated recurrence rate for a magnitude-7 event, this equates to more than US$1 billion per year.” This would be corroborated by their thread, Forum post, and previous work, which emphasise 7 & 1⁄6.
Sorry to be annoying/pedantic about this. I’m being pernickety as I view a key thrust of their research as distinguishing 7 from 8. We can’t just group magnitude 7 (1/6 chance) along with magnitude 8 and write them off as a teeny 1⁄14,000 chance. We need to distinguish 7 from 8, consider their severity/probability seperately, and prioritise them differently.