It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earthquake 2010 in California...hasn't come true?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Hey. It's been long predicted all over that stupid Californian Earthquake was supposed to come. I was watching Bible Code on History Channel. One of the predictions had the keywords California, Earthquake, 2010. But 2010 is just about done..... and what do we see now? Blizzards in NE. Record breaking stuff. any thoughts?




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Only time will tell on this one bud.

Sorry, but no California eq doom quite yet.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by PaR3v
 


still a few days to go but i would have to agree with your prediction!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by PaR3v
 


Yeah, no "big" quake as of yet. Three days (including this one) left though, so who knows? I have had earthquakes on my mind, and we tend to have one when that happens...or I just notice those more than the rest. (Yay, correlation does not equal causation!)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I personally wouldn't put any weight to anything that comes from the bible code. It's little better than the magic 8 ball. However I have been working on a theory that analyses the tectonics of all of the plates in relation to each other by mapping the reduction in stress released after earthquakes happen and then predicting where more stress will be built up as a causality of the relieved areas. I believe that after the high tide preceeding the new moon goes out there is a high probability of a big (8.2+) quake to affect the Cascadia fault area as the Pacific plate needs to relieve stress there. I am no expert so I wouldn't run for the hills yet and my model has been inaccurate for some events in the past but has shown some promising results. The indicators are showing the odds as very high.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Kulkulkan
 


Ooh! 8.2+! That one would be "fun".

I live in the hills, so I don't have to run (Thank a god, I am lazy!)

(If your prediction comes to pass, be sure to contact the USGS with your data. They have been trying to predict quakes for a long time. (I am serious about contacting them too, not being mean.))



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by PaR3v
 

I think that the central problem with many of these natural-disaster-type predictions is that they cater to (or pander to) the common mentality -- or, if you like, what's pereceived as the average level of general knowledge about the subject at hand.

The California "big one" quake predictions are a case in point. It's pretty well known that sooner or later the San Andreas fault will let go again with a "big" quake in or around the magnitude 7 range and depending on exactly where it strikes, it could cause very significant destruction and possibly some serious losses in terms of human lives. This has been pushed time and time again, so even the more ignorant in the US (and many other places) are aware of this scenario and pretty much expecting it to happen.

So, very often, the quake-based disaster predictions for the PNW of the USA -- and most often specific for California -- are built around the fact that most people understand that the thing is going to happen anyway. This gives these predictions a greater air of credibility from the point of view of predicting something that is widely known to be possible, which allows them more air time in the MSM, for one thing, and somehow sets them apart from the Blossom-Goodchild-style predictions which are based upon events that a fair slab of the population does not believe are possible to begin with.

But the problem is this: while it's true that sooner or later, a fault within the San Andreas fault system** will let go with around a mag 7 quake, that event is by no means either the largest in energy release or the most catastrophic in terms of human lives and property loss, that is possible within the US Pacific Northwest. There is in fact the potential for a quake in the magnutude 9-plus range on another fault system, but because it has been 310 years since the last magnitude 9 quake occurred there, it's not of such apparent interest to the general public.

I'm referring the to the "stuck" section of the Juan de Fuca plate, a smallish plate off the Oregon/Washington coast that has been subducting beneath the Nth American plate for thousands of years now. The last time this plate's near-coast subduction zone let go in a big way was on Jan 26, 1700 -- the date known from records in Japan, where they recorded details of the tsunami that swept ashore there after crossing the Pacific Ocean. The tsunami was 30 metres high (almost 100 ft) as it rushed into the Oregon/Washington coast and it floodefd fresh-water lakes miles inland with sea water and killed the trees. It's the dating of the trees that gave us the year; the Japanese records and local native American lore helped to narrow down the exact day.

In short, many native villages by or near the coast were inundated by the tsunami and simply swept away. The height of the coastline was changed. The actual section of land beneath the sea that moved was maybe 600 miles long.

The quake was estimated at a magnitude 9.

To put this in perspective, a magnitude 9.0 quake would release about 1,000 times more energy than California's expected mag 7 "big one". In other words, it takes 1,000 magnitude sevens to equal the energy that lets go in one magnitude nine quake!

Such a massive near-coastal quake off Washington, Oregon and California (and by the way up into Vancouver as well) would cause devastation in that region far greater than anything known in the history of the USA. (The last big one happened there before the US actually existed as a soveriegn nation.) The tsunami would spread hundreds of miles up and down the coast from the epicentre, the shaking in the coastal regions near there would also be massive and could even cause the soils in some places to liquefy, near-coastal roads would be gone or rendered unusable, along with all the other infrastructure, casualties could be massive (especially at night), and aftershocks would probably be many and also quite huge.

To make matters worse, it is unknown if a shift of that plate's subduction zone would trigger other quakes in systems like the San Andreas, but it's not impossible, especially as the final line of the San Andreas runs out into the sea and meets with the fault line that is directly connected to the Juan de Fuca.

Why am I telling you all this? Because it's simply not so well-known, and also because it illustrates my point that a much worse quake scenario in that region is rarely mentioned in these disaster predictions -- and that's because of my first point...

The Juan de Fuca has let go with huge quakes several times in the past. The geologists and seismologists know it. They also know it could let go any day. It could be today or 100 years from now, but it will happen sooner or later.

That is the real "big one", and I bet the vast majority of people living in that part of the world are barely aware of it.

So, the prophets of doom barely mention it.

As for the Madrid fault, I'll leave that for another day. Suffice to say that it's had mag 8 quakes in the past (during US history) and has now been quiet for 200 years. I'd be worried about that if I lived there. Not alarmed, but aware and ready to bug out.

Mike



Note: **The "San Andreas" is not really just one fault, but a large system comrising many faults that are geologically and seismically related in some ways. Their interrelationships are so complex that it's very hard to derive an accurate "shock at point A might trigger a shock at point B" kind of scenario.


edit on 29/12/10 by JustMike because: Typo. Yes I know there are others, but this one made the subject phrase incomprehensible. The others you can surely deal with.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Thanks for the post. I just got up and have learned so much already just from reading it.

Whether or not it happens in 2010 or not, one thing is for sure and that is that one day it will happen and I hope that the damage to life and property is as minimal as possible. Still, I am glad I live nowhere near there..

scary times ahead for sure....



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by PaR3v
 


1 - year is not over 2 - an earthquake will not say when it cames 3 - I really hope there is no earthquake
edit on 29-12-2010 by exmilitaryportuguesenavy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I wouldn't put much stock in the Bible Code. While it is interesting viewing, like many of the Nostradamus predictions people seem to find this stuff after the event has happened and then say, "see, right here, it/he said this was going to happen."

My prediction is that you folks in California will have a minor quake, somewhere around a 3.9, while the big one before the end of the year will hit Chile, between an 8.0 and 9.0. Only time will tell.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by tribewilder
 

Thank you. There's plenty of good info on the site here at ATS about this particular region, including links to reports, data, and so on. if you'd like some more details then just U2U me and I'll get back to you.

The key thing, though, is that as the stuck part of the Juan de Fuca subduction fault line will likely let go again eventually, it's helpful if people are at least aware of the possible results. Ditto the New Madrid fault region. In recent times the focus has been so much on Cal's "big one" that these other potential risks get little press. (Authorities in the potentially affected PNW regions do know of the risks, though, and generally they take such an event -- including a possible tsunami -- into consideration when doing their disaster planning.)

I'd also like to make it clear (to anyone who may wonder) that I didn't post those details to scare-monger. Far from it. What I stated, including the past event's date, is factual and easily checkable. Forewarned is forearmed is many cases, and I was only pointing out some areas of potential but serious risk. If anything, I understated the potential for damage, rather than the opposite.

Another poster mentioned a mid to high range mag-3 range quake in California is likely before the end of this year. I'd agree, simply because Cali gets plenty of these, in fact has had three already during the past seven days, and could well get one or two more in the next two or three days . So yep... good call.
Fortunately these smaller events are rarely a matter for great concern, though they can occasionally be precursors of larger events.

Mike



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PaR3v
 


As a socal resident myself, I've had a keen eye on this bible code prediction all year. I watched the same history channel show and there are several other shows/websites that have discussed this very specific prediction in great detail. Obviously there is only a few days left in 2010, but for the longest time I thought for sure it was going to happen this year especially after the Baja quake on Easter and several other moderate quakes that have followed since.

Here is also a good website with bible code info relating to 'the big one':

www.revelation13.net...

One thing I do want to point out though, is depending on the source, some have said that the 2010 prediction is faulty for several reasons, most notably how they came up with the 2010 number. It's also been speculated that the actual year is 2011 and not 2010.

Regardless of this bible code prediction, it's common scientific knowledge that a major earthquake is going to hit southern california sometime in the future. It's not a matter of if, but when. Could be tomorrow, could be 20 years from now but the bottom line is that it's going to happen and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

One last comment - in terms of where this 'big one' is going to happen - it is up for debate as some scientists have speculated that the true 'big one' won't occur on the San Andreas fault, but along one of the lesser known fault lines that runs under the Los Angeles metro area. I don't know recall the specific name of the fault line, but there is one directly under Los Angeles that could wreak havoc even if it's only @ 7.0 in magnitude. Don't get me wrong though, a major 7.0+ quake on the San Andreas would still be devestating since southern california is a large basin. Liquefaction is also another major factor that scientists and geologists worry about in terms of predicting the extent of the damage (and also the reason why some speculation California could truly sink into the Ocean after a major quake).



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disconnected Sociopath
reply to post by PaR3v
 

(and also the reason why some speculation California could truly sink into the Ocean after a major quake).


This is a myth.


Q: Will California eventually fall off into the ocean?

A: No. The San Andreas Fault System, which crosses California from the Salton Sea in the south to Cape Mendocino in the north, is the boundary between the Pacific Plate and North American Plate. The Pacific Plate is moving northwest with respect to the North American Plate at approximately 46 millimeters per year (the rate your fingernails grow). The strike-slip earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are a result of this plate motion. The plates are moving horizontally past one another, so California is not going to fall into the ocean. However, Los Angeles and San Francisco will one day be adjacent to one another!

Source

Good old fashioned scare tactics. (Really old!)

And, as for "big ones" I would be looking at the Madrid more than the Andreas. Isn't that the one that made the Mississippi river run backwards back in the 1800's?

Lastly, about the "2011" date. When it doesn't happen then, with the actual date become 2012? If the bible said 2010, then that is the date. Or did the bible lie? (All rhetorical questions, since we know the word of that god is never wrong.)

Anyway, still no quake. And, I highly doubt we will have one (big one) before next year. (Which is a good thing, considering the state of the economy right now.)

(JustMike, A+++++++++++++++++++++ that's all I gotsta to say about that.)




top topics



 
1

log in

join