Open AccessReply [to “Comment on ‘Communicating with uncertainty: A critical issue with probabilistic seismic hazard analysis’”]
Author(s) -
Wang Zhenming,
Kiefer John D.,
Shi Baoping,
Edward Woolery W.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
eos, transactions american geophysical union
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.316
H-Index - 86
eISSN - 2324-9250
pISSN - 0096-3941
DOI - 10.1029/2004eo300005
Subject(s) - confusion , hazard , probabilistic logic , point (geometry) , computer science , seismic hazard , risk analysis (engineering) , actuarial science , epistemology , seismology , geology , economics , psychology , philosophy , artificial intelligence , mathematics , business , chemistry , geometry , organic chemistry , psychoanalysis
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 article 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.