Half of California is not on the western side of the San Andreas fault, sorry.
That's pedantic, an awful lot is, i'm affraid I did not measure it, and either way, it would do neither side much good.
I don't need to look on google, I have studied plate tectonics and geomorphology at university. A strike-slip fault does not have the
mechanics to cause significant water displacement like a thrust fault does. In addition, within California, almost none of it is in the
So, what you're saying is a 9.5 Quake on the San-Andreas fault would not be so bad?
Eh? I'm not sure which Uni you studied at, different than most of the Geologists that have written papers on the very study of that particular fault
line. I have read quite a number.
Lets just say we have differing opinions on the worldwide destructive force of the San-Andreas fault.
Actually, the Pacific plate pretty much heads straight south from Mexico, so it never reaches Chile, and it extends west to New Zealand, Japan
and the Korean Peninsula. There are many places where movement of the Pacific plate can cause significant tsunamis, but your claim was that the
disaster was in California, and that is not one of them. If there is an earthquake in Alaska which causes a tsunami, that's not going to count as an
accurate prediction for you, sorry.
i'm sorry if it does not fit in with your opinion. However, the ring of fire extends around almost the entire pacific ocean. The plates are all quite
Perhaps you are missing the point here? The USA will not be part of this. Not as a world super-power.
Throughout none of this have I said I had a "vision" of California burning, or a "Vision" that Yellowstone would erupt?
Everything is based on evidence, material fact, ancient history & current affairs.
Ever heard the statement "if you find yourself in a hole, best stop digging?"
I do not feel like i'm digging unfortunately.
I do hope you're right though, however, from my point of view initially, I don't live in California?
I would suggest you either get better informed about things you intend to claim, or only claim things that you understand, because your claim
that a California earthquake would cause worldwide calamity because of tsunamis is absolutely wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
It makes me wonder what you in particular would consider was a worldwide calamity?
Guessing you don't live in California or any of the coastal areas of the pacific rim?