reply to post by westcoast
I've done that a few times myself. And I agree: if we have a prediction of some kind in a post it's probably best to leave it unedited.
Okay, now I'll address your main post:
Originally posted by westcoast
reply to post by JustMike
I always enjoy reading your posts, and I think one of the reasons if that you seem to take the same approach on a lot of thing the same way I do.
Great minds think alike...
I have said numerous times in various threads that I believe very much in the yin-yang of quakes on our earth. It is a closed environment and
therefore I think any logical person would HAVE to agree that if there is a certain amout of force or movement on one side of the world, than there
HAS to be some affect on the opposite.
It sure makes sense to me. Sure, we don't know about all of the possible forces involved, but the whole process of seismic and volcanic activity is
based on movement of energy: ground movement in quakes and volcanoes spewing magma and so forth are all simply functions of energy movement and
I have tried to look at the anitpocal (sp?) maps which show the opposites, but now that you have shown how to do the simple math I am smacking
These are typically set up to give locations that are both laterally and hemispherically opposite, so that for example 30 deg N, 60
deg E has 30 deg S, 120 deg W as its antipodal point. However, what I've noticed is that while the lateral opposition seems to occur in some cases (of
possible "triggering"), there is no hemisphere reversal, so the resultant point is not actually antipodal. I guess there might be some antipodal cases
but it's not what I've observed.
While I think you are spot-on with your logic here, I am going to throw you a bit of a curve-ball. As I am sure you are well aware, I have
been spouting for months now that I think we are building to a big event here in the PNW. Now, that in itself is really nothing, because ALL the
scientists have pretty much been saying the same thing for years. We are WAY over-due. I take it a step further though and apply some other not so
scientifically supported indicators. The indicators themself are scientific, but putting them all together for a hypothesis isn't.
That's the advantage of having an "experimental" approach. Even if the methodologies are not always based on hard-and-fast scientific principles, it
doesn't render them invalid if consistent results are achieved that are significantly beyond pure chance. It's also the way that science sometimes
develops and evolves.
Regarding "overdue", I agree that as the 13 events known to have occurred there in the past 6,000-odd years occurred at intervals ranging from as low
as about 200 years to roughly 800 years -- and the last one was almost 311 years ago -- the next one could
occur at any time. It could be
today, or perhaps not for another century or more. Now, I know that you
know this and that you're not using "overdue" as if quakes were like
buses that run to some kind of precise timetable
, but it seems out there in internetland some people with little knowledge of the realities
take that "overdue" expression rather more literally. So, rather than "overdue", I prefer to think of it as "not unlikely" (or a phrase to that
Put it another way: if someone were to tell me that such an event can't
happen soon because of (insert any nonsense argument you've heard here
), my response would simply be that more than enough time has passed compared to some past, known quakes there, and so to deny the possibility is
ignoring the scientifically supportable facts.
The recent increasing deep-tremors, the magma chamber theory and our absolute lack of anything bigger than a 6.7 in decades. We are sitting on
a time bomb here and I think all we need is the right event to trigger it.
Agreed. If this piece of real estate needs a trigger to get it moving, then a major event somewhere else could be enough. I suppose even a relatively
minor event could do it -- in which case it could also be argued that if the stresses have built up to near-breaking point already, then it could go
all on its own without needing any
triggering event. Problem is, we have so little data on what really sets off these megathrust events. So
much is still just theory.
I know you are familiar with my rumbling thread, and of course I personally add that to my list of indicators.
We have had some odd smaller quakes up my direction. In the far Northern region of my State:
MAP 2.9 2011/01/19 07:10:45 48.960 -120.688 6.6 66 km ( 41 mi) NW of Winthrop, WA
MAP 2.2 2011/01/16 07:18:41 48.671 -122.459 17.1 9 km ( 6 mi) S of Bellingham, WA
MAP 1.6 2011/01/16 06:40:44 48.676 -122.464 13.4 8 km ( 5 mi) S of Bellingham, WA
These are kinda odd places. At least, I don't recall seeing ones is these regions...and in reviewing seismos they have an usuall way of showing up
stronger than they should on siesmos that are further away rather than closer to their epicenter.
I had your "rumbling" reports and those of others in your region noted down as indicators of possible, upcoming events pretty well as soon as your
thread got going. I just makes sense to me, because even if it's not necessarily rock-solid from a scientific standpoint it's still a reasonable basis
for developing a hypothetical argument.
That quake near Winthrop: I noticed that one and it immediately struck me as odd because I don't recall seeing one right there before -- at least, not
in recent times. And as USGS doesn't provide much data by way of historic seismicity for that one, it'll mean having to dig through NEIC data to find
out much more.
Not too sure what to make of the seismo reading anomalies you've mentioned. Are they all set to the same levels of sensitivity? Any variation there
will affect the perceived traces.
I just love THIS tremor map. If you haven't already looked at it, you should. You'll notice that they
tend to go back and forth beween North Cali/Southern OR and The South end of Vanouver Island, in Puget Sound.
Yes, that's a great resource and I've spent quite some time with it, setting up the calendar there and using it to look at patterns of events over
various time intervals. It's almost like watching a "sloshing" effect in some ways.
Anyways, to get to my point.
While I agree with your 180 degree theory, I would like to give an alternate possibility to the prediction area. I think that the Juan de Fuca fault
has had several releases in the past year. Not in Central or Northern California, but certainly in Southern California and Mexico/Brazil.
Not sure if I follow you here... As the Cascadia fault doesn't actualy run through SoCal and down into Mexico, do you mean that energy release along
other faults south of the Cascadia is, in effect, causing release in the Cascadia fault itself? Or, alternatively, is the Cascadia fault somehow
transmitting energy down into the more southern faults and this energy is then being released there?
I concede that our understanding of how all these faults interact is still so limited that almost anything within the bounds of possibility needs to
be considered, so I'd like to hear more of your opinions or conjecture on this.
One could argue this might mean it is due a bit further north so it might work into your prediction, but I think not. I think that the
earlier releases South, combined with the pakistan quake and 180 degree theory MIGHT indicate a more probable release on the Cascadia subduction
I really hope that I am wrong, and your prediction area is accurate....but I think you have to factor in the releases in the past year and how that
impacts the locked continents to the North, especially Cascadia.
I follow you here. As I said, my own opinion given at the end of my earlier long post today was based on observation of past events. So, it was purely
assumptive. There is always the possibility that sooner or later, there could be a "straw that broke the camel's back" event that triggers the
My main reason for choosing the area I did was simply that this is the region where a known, main fault lies at almost exactly 180 deg longitude away
from yesterday's Pakistan quake. But yes, it doesn't have
to be there. If we are lucky then the event (if it occurs) will be minor enough that
it won't cause any serious harm. I'd be relieved to see nothing over a mid-range mag 5, but my feeling is a stronger event is possible.
Having said that, and given the location of the deep tremors and recent PNW quakes.....I would wager we might see something either on the
Cali/OR border, or Puget Sound region.
Especially offshore, the Cal/OR border is a very significant region because of the (assumed) plate junctions there. I'd be much happier to see even a
medium-sized event there than in Puget Sound. I guess we'd all prefer that, really.
I'll be honest with you and say that doing these predictions churns my guts. Generally speaking, I don't post predictions unless I am reasonably sure
I'm right. Especially with more significant predictions like this one (and the ones for Greece and Japan), I lie awake at night and worry about them
-- not because I might be wrong, but because if I'm right, then it means some people could quite literally be badly shaken and in the worst cases,
people could even lose their lives.
You live in a region that one day, will probably experience one of the largest megthrust quake and tsunami events of modern times. You know it and
somehow you deal with it; you're even able to discuss the possibilities in a reasonably detached way. It's worrying that there are doubtless many
people in your part of the world who either aren't aware of those possibilities or barely give them a second thought.
It also concerns me that considering the potential for loss of life, especially in low-lying coastal regions, the Powers That Be (TPTB) in your part
of the world seem to rate this potential disaster as such a low priority, when frankly so much more could be done (and should
be done), both in
terms of at least investigating this fault system and trying to pre-guess its next move and also in improving disaster preparedness.
I'm not saying they're not doing anything: I know they are. But the potential losses are so horrendous that surely it would be worth investing more
time, money and resources into this. One of the latest studies
(from 2009) indicates the area
that could potentially be devastated on land
is much greater than originally thought:
The most important aspect for northern Cascadia is that stronger coupling between 15 and 25 km implies greater coseismic slip near major
population centers, and provides an estimate of future coseismic slip along this region. 50% coupling suggests 9 meters of slip should be expected
directly up-dip of 25 km. This lies well inland of the coast, directly west of the greater Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan basin. For the 300
km-long Washington State segment of Cascadia constrained by this study, this constitutes an Mw=8.9 earthquake.
In spite of this, the official line is still that a megathrust event on the Cascadia fault would be less damaging and result in lower losses than a
major quake somewhere on the San Andreas fault system -- a system that is not even capable of producing a quake of such magnitude.
As for the fact that a Cascadia megathrust event would likely produce a huge tsunami, whereas a San Andreas fault system quake would not -- well, this
is also not being sufficiently taken into account by TPTB.
I just hope and pray that those who have the power to make major decisions will sit up and take notice of the more recent studies -- and what they
imply -- before it's too late.
Best regards and apologies for such a long reply,
edit on 19/1/11 by JustMike because: Typos. Two hours to write the darned thing and I get typos!