Author Topic: Japan's quake: Why California is next  (Read 2224 times)

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2011, 04:51:26 AM »
California is not going to "fall off" as AckAck noted. Plus you have the Pacific plate trying to push EAST, being pushed under California, in effect keeping it pushed onto the continent.


Offline Melvin

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2011, 05:06:24 AM »
Learn to swim..........
See Rule #4

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2011, 12:48:33 PM »
Learn to swim..........

 never know maybe MI will be a large island someday  :lol get out yur flippers :eek:

http://www.datelinezero.com/2010/10/08/a-crack-forms-in-michigans-upper-peninsula/
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2011, 02:01:59 PM »
People that are actually experts in this subject have debunked the article that appeared in Newsweek saying the "theory" laid out in the article was rife with falsehoods and non-scientific leaps of bad logic.  As one earthquake geologist stated, Simon Winchester is a popular science writer, not a scientist,".

I guess fear, like sex, is a great way to sell a magazine.

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2011, 04:01:35 PM »
This is why.

(Image removed from quote.)

Define any and "major quake" please.  Southern end of the Juan de Fuca fault is right where they've had a couple quakes in the 6.0-7.0 range off the coast from Humboldt Bay (Northern California) in the last couple years.  Would have to look up the old charts to see if they were close enough to count as being on the Juan de Fuca fault, but definetley close enough in the same ballpark region a far as quakes are concerned to of released some tension on the fault (at least the southern end... look out Seattle).


Edit:  Another blatant falacy with the map, the San Andreas fault, it is in the ring of fire... oh wait, that's right, it just had a recent signifigant seismic release of energy less than 12-months ago just south of the US-Mexico border.  Seems like they selectively excluded any good (or likely acurate) information from that image that would be reason to calm and assure the general public.  Thus it can be assumed it was generated purely to stipulate fear and worry.


People that are actually experts in this subject have debunked the article that appeared in Newsweek saying the "theory" laid out in the article was rife with falsehoods and non-scientific leaps of bad logic.  As one earthquake geologist stated, Simon Winchester is a popular science writer, not a scientist,".

I guess fear, like sex, is a great way to sell a magazine.

ack-ack

Like I said, written by someone without a clue and obviously who hasn't lived or even read a newspaper from this region in a very long time - consumed eagerly and readily by those whith less of one.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 04:09:08 PM by Babalonian »
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2011, 04:06:24 PM »
All know that the San Andreas Fault is due to rupture one day — it last did so in 1906, and strains have built beneath it to a barely tolerable level.

Really?  How do they know it's barely tolerable?  Someone dig a hole and check with their pocket strain gauge, or...?

I hate it when otherwise decent articles are stupidified by nonsense like this.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline BaDkaRmA158Th

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2011, 04:40:02 PM »
California in many places only needs to drop about 2 1/2 to 3 feet, for the vally to flood, sure its not california falling* into the ocean,more like the ocean coming up and into california. and that is without a 15-30foot tall tsunami of water running inland to help it along.


What bothers me the most, is the idea of the entire vally becoming like someone pushed a bowl into a full sink of water. Much of california is under sea level.
~383Rd RTC/CH BW/AG~
BaDfaRmA

My signature says "Our commitment to diplomacy will never inhibit our willingness to kick a$s."

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2011, 04:42:18 PM »
Define any and "major quake" please.  Southern end of the Juan de Fuca fault is right where they've had a couple quakes in the 6.0-7.0 range off the coast from Humboldt Bay (Northern California) in the last couple years.  Would have to look up the old charts to see if they were close enough to count as being on the Juan de Fuca fault, but definetley close enough in the same ballpark region a far as quakes are concerned to of released some tension on the fault (at least the southern end... look out Seattle).


Edit:  Another blatant falacy with the map, the San Andreas fault, it is in the ring of fire... oh wait, that's right, it just had a recent signifigant seismic release of energy less than 12-months ago just south of the US-Mexico border.  Seems like they selectively excluded any good (or likely acurate) information from that image that would be reason to calm and assure the general public.  Thus it can be assumed it was generated purely to stipulate fear and worry.


Like I said, written by someone without a clue and obviously who hasn't lived or even read a newspaper from this region in a very long time - consumed eagerly and readily by those whith less of one.


LOL I was sitting here flying when that went off in April, 7.2 we also had a 6.9 a few months later. I believe.
 
It refers to Large 8.0 and over.

There are an average of ten 7.0 to 7.9 quakes per year since 1900. Last year 2010 there were double that.

It's part of the Mendocino fracture zone

The San Andreas fault zone, which is about 1,300 km long and in places tens of kilometers wide, slices through two thirds of the length of California. Along it, the Pacific Plate has been grinding horizontally past the North American Plate for 10 million years, at an average rate of about 5 cm/yr. Land on the west side of the fault zone (on the Pacific Plate) is moving in a northwesterly direction relative to the land on the east side of the fault zone (on the North American Plate).

Aerial view of the San Andreas fault slicing through the Carrizo Plain in the Temblor Range east of the city of San Luis Obispo.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 07:05:02 PM by Megalodon »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2011, 04:46:44 PM »
California in many places only needs to drop about 2 1/2 to 3 feet, for the vally to flood, sure its not california falling* into the ocean,more like the ocean coming up and into california. and that is without a 15-30foot tall tsunami of water running inland to help it along.


What bothers me the most, is the idea of the entire vally becoming like someone pushed a bowl into a full sink of water. Much of california is under sea level.

I don't want california to sink 15 ft and then get hit with a 30 ft tsunami because that would probably kill most of my family.

The valley isn't called the "inland sea" because the name sounded cool, it's because it really was a shallow sea until the various fault lines smooshed up the mountains high enough to cut off both ocean and river water sources.  Lots of petrified stuff out there including an entire huge petrified forest that must have been nearly instantly covered in water and sediment during a massive and FAST natural disaster thousands of years ago, and now it's out in the middle of a dry desert.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2011, 05:51:42 PM »
California in many places only needs to drop about 2 1/2 to 3 feet, for the vally to flood, sure its not california falling* into the ocean,more like the ocean coming up and into california. and that is without a 15-30foot tall tsunami of water running inland to help it along.

None of the fault lines that run through California will cause that to happen, as they are all strike strip faults.  At the university I went to, we literally had a section of the San Andreas Fault running through the back end of campus and you can see some foundations of small school that was built in the early 1900's directly ontop of the fault line.  The western section of the foundation was about 10 feet north of the eastern section of the foundation.


ack-ack
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 06:39:26 PM by Ack-Ack »
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #40 on: March 22, 2011, 06:24:41 PM »
California in many places only needs to drop about 2 1/2 to 3 feet, for the vally to flood, sure its not california falling* into the ocean,more like the ocean coming up and into california. and that is without a 15-30foot tall tsunami of water running inland to help it along.


What bothers me the most, is the idea of the entire vally becoming like someone pushed a bowl into a full sink of water. Much of california is under sea level.

 :headscratch:  :confused:  Where's my topo map of the state of California when I need one.

I assume you're talking about the Central Valley and not "The Valley" that we all know and love/hate as the San Fernando Valley (which is well enclosed and above any chance of having ocean-front property anytime soon).  Yes, a good deal of the Central Valley is only a few feet above sea level, but has been for a very very long time, this is specificaly because the region from just outside Sacramento going all thay to San Francisco Bay is what we fondly like to refer to as a river delta, specificaly one of the largest on earth I believe - the Sacramento River Delta.  This Delta is not heavily populated as it has historicaly long been subjected to seasonal flooding anyways (not so much anymore these days though as we have the entire river under flood control now).  Today what is still undeveloped and subject to flooding or changing tidals is vastly unpopulated nature and wetland reserve or argiculture land used for one of our state's more bountiful crops, rice.  Most developed areas are on raised areas of land with heavy flood control and drainage as a part of their local infrastructure.  Even the highways and roads have been raised a few feet above the delta to avoid the seasonal flooding can still happen during a heavy local storm.

As for a vast amount of our state being a valley with a basin that's well below sea level (and I do believe it is the largest chunk of US territory under sea level), look up Death Valley.  Secondly, it's Death Valley, not even the US Marines can take it and settled for nearby and milder 29-sticks, so I don't think we have to worry about too many homes or people being unsettled.  Thirdly, it's Death Valley, if they have to start worrying about the aproach of the ocean, the natural disaster within California's territories and iminute flooding of Death Valley will be the least of mankinds problems at that moment in time (its physical location as well as what would be required of the ocean to crest it's surrounding mountains and general region we refer to out here as "the High Dessert").

Edit, ah wait, I think know what you're talking about now, the Tulare Lake Basin?  But it's still not below sea level and a ways inland, so I'm a little confused what you're refering to.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 07:33:42 PM by Babalonian »
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2011, 07:13:58 PM »
LOL I was sitting here flying when that went off in April, 7.2 we also had a 6.9 a few months later. I believe.
 
It refers to Large 8.0 and over.

There are an average of ten 7.0 to 7.9 quakes per year since 1900. Last year 2010 there were double that.

Ah, then we're talking about a "big one".  Last time I had a look, there is none in modern recorded history on the West Coast of that magnitude or greater for certain.  Oddly though, and coincidently too since we're talking about the Juan de Fuca fault and not the San Andreas, it is believed the last "big one" that hit the US West Coast was some time "shortly" before the arival of the Lewis and Clark expedition at its final destination (I believe near the mouth of the Snake?).  After L&C arrived at the ocean and settled down to get down to surveying buisness they quickly noted that none (zero, zip, nilch) of the native americans native to the Pacific would set up their villages and tribes on the coasts or anywhere near it, typicaly they would be well above the coast a couple miles or inland along the rivers, again by a couple miles at least.  Upon inquiring, each tribe would tell them the same thing, a couple I believe even had very old elders who recounted to L&C of their youth or first-hand accounts told to them - some recounting about the earth shaking violently for a long time, mountains and cliffs colapsing, rocks almost as big as a mountain rolling down the mountains and into the ocean, but primarily they all recounted the same major thing - loosing so many many of their loved ones and people of their tribe to "a great wave" that, according to the legends, came in from the sea (after the shaking to those who recounted it) over 150-feet high in some areas.  Some tribes and nations, more dependent/focused on the ocean life than that of the forests to their backs, were completely wiped off the continent whole without a trace.  The elders didn't claim to of lost hundreds, but thousands of tribesmen, which L&C didn't think was serious or possible (primarily that there was once so many indians, less-so about a monster wave but they didn't completely buy that either)... but given what we know now what Tsunamis are capable of today (and that they do exist and can happen), it is possible that mega coastal tribes of thousands of native americans once prospered along the West Coast and were simply wiped away along with all evidence of their existence in a split second.  Lewis and clark in their diary noted these tales and also refered to some physical proof they observed in old downed and huge snapped trees all below a certain elevation along the coast that would seem to verify the magnitude of the Tsunami that struck.  It was obvious though that enough time had passed that the forest had started recovering and was well re-establishing itself when L&C arrived, but L&C at the time concluded the locals were simply superstitious of the ocean.

Take that information from their expedition and diarys though into today and it is belived with some certainty the last major "big one" that hit the West Coast occured ~50-100 years before L&C arrived, somewhere offshore the Oregon coast, likely along the Juan de Fuca fault and over 8.0 magnitude, resulting a gigantic tsunami that hit vast regions of the west coast, displacing most the Native Americans that once lived there and forcing them to settle further inland where the threat of a deadly and sudden tsunami was avoided.
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Japan's quake: Why California is next
« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2011, 09:57:44 PM »
late Jan,1700 to be exact it was the Cascadia quake in the high 8's the wave hit Japan.

Here is a very good book/study on this subject you might like.

"The Orphan Tsunami of 1700", by geologist Brian F. At water <---sensor getting this


Some think since the Fuca plate has fractured twice, Explorer and Gorda plate's, there we'll be 3 smaller quakes 7.8-8.5  instead of 1 very large quake 8.7-9.5.

The Fuca plate is the smallest sub plate in the world and dives under the north american plate.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 10:31:33 PM by Megalodon »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520