San Andreas a subduction fault capable of a 9.5+ EQ, USGS cover up?

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Consider the source of that statement - an anonymous internet commenter.

That being said, as pointed out in this thread, most of what that commenter said isn't correct.

I posted this thread primarily to discuss this theory. I understand that any random message board poster/blogger can post complete BS on the internet to get a rise out of people and troll - look no further than these ATS forums for multiple examples of this on a daily basis.

However it is important to note that this poster in question on the LA Times blog has had a lot of their posts deleted - both in this story from yesterday, and in past news articles on the LA Times that dealth with seismic activity. Now of course this could mean nothing, or it could be a conspiracy. But I do find it suspicious that this person would reference scientific papers from Stanford university and have them censored.

Also it's certainly feasible that the USGS would not be 100% truthful with their reporting and data - after all they are a government organization. And if the stories are true regarding them intentionally downgrading EQ's and deleting Yellowstone EQ's from record - than I have no doubt that they are lying about the true danger of the San Andreas fault.

Seriously, You believe ATS would sensor based on source? Not content, or repeated TOS requirements?
We all sign an agreement when we come on here. Or don't post. I've watched these guys that run AST for years.
Stanford Shmandsford....
The mods are damned if they do,damned if they don't.
QUICK!! TROLL Get him out!
WAIT!!! Maybe NOT a troll...let's see some responces.
They know more then we do about patterns of postings. They could have bounced my hot babe comment too.That was uncalled for. Most of my posts have backup sources, which is what they kindly ask for.
Hot babes ? That was wrong. I should have posted pics.

reply to post by tortfeasor1


Thanks for posting that link.

I really liked the story of the land rise off the coast of Chile in connection to earthquakes.

reply to post by Disconnected Sociopath

What could possibly be the motive for them to cover up this stuff? Many of those USGS people have family and friends near the fault, so how could they expect to keep it a secret, and more importantly, why?

You could argue for economic reasons, but that would be an insane move, because if the quake happens and we lose all those people/businesses, the entire US economy would suffer immensely.

reply to post by Anmarie96


No offence meant Anmarie but I have to take issue on the California volcano bit. There are 19 volcanoes all at the same distance more or less that the Cascadian volcanoes lie from the subduction zone, with three of four possible exceptions. In addition as well demonstrated the earthquakes happen in the same zone that they happen in Oregon and Washington. Granted they are a bit 'thin' in the middle but then I don't have information about older volcanoes so there may have been some filling in the gaps.

Isla Tortuga
San Borja Volcanic Field
Coronado
Jaraguay Volcanic Field
Gualdelupe
Isla St Luis
Pinacate
Cerro Prieto
Salton Buttes
Golden Trout Creek
Ubehebe Craters
Mammoth Craters
Inyo Craters
Mono Craters
Mono Lake Volcanic Field
Clear Lake
Lassen Volcanic Centre
Shasta
Medicine Lake

Holocene Volcanoes in California

1 of these is Pleistocene.

In view of this do you not think that in fact there is a small possibility that this could be a stuck subduction zone, but one that has been stuck for so long that it is not visible as such? Maybe as the OP article said, strike/slip with an element of subduction. After all that happens in the Alpine fault in New Zealand to a degree.

It does seem a mite odd that the plates should not be subducting when the push against them is the same all the way down.

The article said that the southern part has not ruptured in recorded history which could bear out the possibility of something not quite as expected. On the other hand a great deal of energy is dissipated at Baja. Having studied this for some time now, I have yet to find a set of articles or diagrams that actually agree on which direction the North American plate is supposedly moving. South East, South West, West, rotating, tearing apart and frankly none of it logical or as far as I am concerned satisfactorily proven.

It is said that the San Andreas is a transform fault.

Jordan - Dead Sea Transform Fault

New Zealand - Alpine Fault

Pakistan - Chaman Transform Fault

Turkey - North Anatolian Fault

Alaska - Queen Charlotte-Fairweather Fault System.
I can't find a good picture of that one, but basically it is mountainous.

So next an image of a transform fault

The San Andreas

and another(exaggerated height)


I see very little similarity between the San Andreas and other so called transform faults, or indeed the diagram.

I do not purport to have the answer but I believe that everything is not so 'pat' as it is given out to be and there may be an element of truth in some of what was said.

Finally you just have to love what the "scientists" said

but new research has shed light on a more dangerous kind of rocking that has occurred there over the past millennium

Now there is a good geological description for you! Punk, Heavy Metal or just plain Rock 'N Roll

Sorry but I think scientists have very little credibility when they make statements like that.

Having said that of course I don't really hold with this unproven subduction theory so maybe there is no problem!

reply to post by PuterMan


Mmm, No - if in fact we had a stuck zone, we would have much energy in the area - preasure, grinding, which would lead to massive heat, ect. = volcanoes. We have these other areas as you mention, but let us remember, there is also a hot spot under the area -

As for the links you provided, I will have to take a look at them tomorrow and get back to you on them.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2743ca3a950.jpg[/atsimg]

Look at this fault...Does it look like any sort of subduction happened here just 500 years ago? 1000? Earth processes take their dear sweet time (as my professor said today "The Earth has plenty of time!"). If there was a regular subduction process that occurred along this fault line we would see obvious evidence of such.

Subduction would clearly show raised elevation on the continental side of the fault. The seaward plate would present us with HUGE dip features that would also be painfully obvious. And if this scenario was remotely true, the forces required to move two overlapping plates sideways would shake the world.

There is zero geologic record indicating that continental crust has ever subducted. There is however ample evidence that if two continental units collide into each other, the pressure builds mountains (orogeny). The only likely truth is that plate dynamics will change over time. The crustal units would smash up until the pressure was too great, at which time the oceanic crust (which is thinner and heavier) would begin to subduct out at sea.

Two other things: Puterman ( ), who provided this pic of the San Andreas also linked an illustration of a transforn fault. That image depicts short sectional transform faults which are perpendicular to midocean ridges. Because the earth is round, and the ridges aren't straight lines, the newly formed oceanic crust doesn't move as one solid sheet of rock...hence the very different look of that diagram.

Second, "overdue" in geologic terms is pretty much useless to humanity. Overdue could mean tomorrow, or 1000 years from now. Geologists know that stresses and force builds up, but the true mechanics and variables are out of reach. We don't have the data nor technology to model the physics involved.
In fact the other week I attended a talk by a vulcanologist who was doing some cutting edge stuff with physics modeling for eruption plumes. I asked a question about terrain and air-intake affecting plume integrity, and she said that the computers (multiple) could barely complete the plume model. They simply used an imaginary point on flat plane to generate the simulation.

Originally posted by niceguybob
Seriously, You believe ATS would sensor based on source? Not content, or repeated TOS requirements?
We all sign an agreement when we come on here. Or don't post. I've watched these guys that run AST for years.
Stanford Shmandsford....
The mods are damned if they do,damned if they don't.
QUICK!! TROLL Get him out!
WAIT!!! Maybe NOT a troll...let's see some responces.
They know more then we do about patterns of postings. They could have bounced my hot babe comment too.That was uncalled for. Most of my posts have backup sources, which is what they kindly ask for.
Hot babes ? That was wrong. I should have posted pics.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not - but I never said that ATS sensors anything.

I was talking about the LA Times blog moderators - and according to the poster I quoted, they have had multiple posts deleted regarding information on the EQ articles. I can't vouch for this or verify the claim but it wouldn't surprise me because just like any blog/forum, there is some form of moderation - especially on one of the countries largest online newspapers.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by Disconnected Sociopath

 

What could possibly be the motive for them to cover up this stuff? Many of those USGS people have family and friends near the fault, so how could they expect to keep it a secret, and more importantly, why?

You could argue for economic reasons, but that would be an insane move, because if the quake happens and we lose all those people/businesses, the entire US economy would suffer immensely.

edit on 9-2-2011 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)

Who knows what their motive may be - but I wouldn't be surprised if it's for economic reasons.

Many of you may or may not know this - but California is the 8th largest economy in the entire world. And if you were a multi billion dollar company looking to expand your operations, would you really want to invest out here knowing that the entire state could literally sink into the ocean any day now?

Also going further - let's say the governments top scientists has found a way to predict EQ's and was 99% certain that a massive 9.0+ EQ was going to happen on the San Andreas within 6 months - do you honestly think they would tell the public knowing what type of panic and chaos would ensue?

Let's get serious here - California is dead broke right now. Unemployment is 2nd highest in the country. The housing market is in shambles do to the subprime disaster. Immigration has spiraled out of control as the handouts keep coming despite a non existant state budget - add all this up and chaos is inevitable. The Big One will be just that - one big final nail in this states coffin.

Oh yah - to add more fuel to the conspiracy, FEMA recently denied federal aid to CA:

www.sbsun.com...

Now you may ask how is this relevant and say to yourself it happens all the time to other states - but if you truly think about it - why would the federal government waste money on a bunch of flooded homes knowing that the same area could be devestated by an even worse disaster very soon - again I smell conspiracy.

The San Andreas is not a Subduction Zone like the Chile/Peru, Aluetian, Kermadec, Japan, Marianas or other Trench systems around the globe where the subduction is happening directly face on.
Although a 9.5 cannot be totally discounted on the Fault, the likleyhood of this is slim, even Mag 8s are very rare (1872 Lone Pine and 1908 SF) compared to the above mentioned subduction zones

From en.wikipedia.org...

All land west of the fault on the Pacific Plate is moving slowly to the northwest while all land east of the fault is moving southwest (relatively southeast as measured at the fault) under the influence of plate tectonics. The rate of slippage averages approximately 33 to 37 millimetres (1.3 to 1.5 in) annually across California. The westward component of the motion of the North American Plate creates compressional forces which are expressed as uplift in the Coast Ranges. Likewise, the northwest motion of the Pacific Plate creates significant compressional forces where the North American Plate stands in its way, creating the Transverse Ranges in Southern California, and to a lesser, but still significant, extent the Santa Cruz Mountains, site of the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989. Studies of the relative motions of the Pacific and North American plates have shown that only about 75 percent of the motion can be accounted for in the movements of the San Andreas and its various branch faults. The rest of the motion has been found in an area east of the Sierra Nevada mountains called the Walker Lane or Eastern California Shear Zone. The reason for this is not as yet clear, although several hypotheses have been offered and research is ongoing. One hypothesis which gained some currency following the Landers Earthquake in 1992 is that the plate boundary may be shifting eastward, away from the San Andreas to the Walker Lane.

reply to post by blamethegreys


Sorry Folks, just poking you to make you think! The fact is that the geologists do NOT actually know and yes there is no evidence of subduction, probably because subduction does not exist ( - prove it does! ), but I believe the terminology of the OP article was wrong. Yes, plates push against each other as they pass by waving if we are going with plate tectonics. Could one ride up over the other in a cataclysmic event? Of course it is a possibility. Could that be described as subduction? No, not really, but we have had subduction thrust in our faces for so long now that it could be an understandable terminological mistake to make. This is the problem these things are all theoretical and yet they get quoted as if they are hard and fast facts. They are not.

In fact the other week I attended a talk by a vulcanologist who was doing some cutting edge stuff with physics modeling for eruption plumes. I asked a question about terrain and air-intake affecting plume integrity, and she said that the computers (multiple) could barely complete the plume model. They simply used an imaginary point on flat plane to generate the simulation.

Begin Rant

This is my point exactly. The same applies to all this computer modelling - it just does not work properly. Any modelling HAS to be driven by the way the programmer wrote the code. If the programmer got it wrong, the model will put out incorrect results. I don't know a programmer who gets a program right the first time, and thus they go back and tweak the models, and tweak them, and tweak them some more. This is not modelling, this is 'fixing' to make it say what you want it to say. They have a preconceived idea of what the result should be and the programming is written to achieve that result. I have done it myself so I know that happens.

Things change, 18mm gets taken out of the radius of the Earth every year because 'it does not fit the model'. Many many things get removed from models because they 'do not fit what we expected'. Hell, scientists even admit this happens in serious articles. How can you trust people who do that?

Plate tectonics did not (hardly) exist when I did geology and yet now it is the Gospel. It is still an hypothesis and in 50 years time may have been replaced with a new hypothesis. Butter was bad for you, now it is good in moderation. Eggs were good for you, then bad for you and now good for you again. Scientists, God bless them, are just as prone as anyone else to saying what is required to get the funding. Would you go completely against your work's policies and then expect them to pay you?

Time and time again I read articles that refer to other articles that refer to other articles etc. Does anyone actually do any original research?

Just because there is no evidence of something does not mean that it cannot exist. I can't actually believe I said that as it does not fit my model of the world, but you some of you good folks run on that kind of thinking all the time.

Blessed is he that has not seen yet believes.

Geologists believe that a huge column of upwelling lava, known as a “plume,” lies at a fixed position under the Pacific Plate.

Source: Plate Tectonics . com

Geologists never know, they always believe. And like any religious subject there are those who believe something different. Geologists 'believe' there is a plume under Iceland, other geologists 'believe' there is not. Same applies to Yellowstone.

I am going to stop as I could write a book about the stupidity and contradictions of scientists.

End Rant

reply to post by muzzy


See? Like I said, hypothesis, schmypothesis. They don't actually know. You just laid that out perfectly. Of course Wikipedia only preaches the Gospel so I would not take too much notice of them where anything that may have other explanations are concerned.





You might be interested in this

North America Plate Motion

reply to post by PuterMan


Hahahah, you crack me up! Had to give you a star for that rant. I am also physically applauding you.

By the way, I must be blessed as I have not seen an earthquake yet I believe they exist

reply to post by zenius


You might like this link showing the tectonic plates

There are many.

I have never experienced an earthquake either as we just hardly ever get them in Ireland and I never remember one in England. I guess I probably will never get to experience one either. This might mean according to my world model that there is no such thing.

By the way you have to love this from the linked page.

The list of tectonic plates consists proved and proposed tectonic plates of the Earth. Plates which do not longer exist are not listed.

Um, did they subduct or what?



PS As you scroll down (in the linked page) you may find an EVEN MORE INTERESTING Wiki link on the right hand side.

reply to post by PuterMan


Loved the rant as well!

I am in school for Geology (obviously) but I am skeptical about everything. I don't voice much opposition in class though, because it would would be pissin' in the wind. I did once make a comment to a professor that 'No one has ever seen a subducted plate' and I got an odd look back from her!

I don't disbelieve plate tectonics, it is a theory that does work with our current understanding of physical laws. But I am totally open to other ideas because science isn't all knowing, the only scientific field that is truly mature is mathematics (who don't know everything yet either). I'm pretty confident they have a good chunk of the whole in their grasp.

Geology is a young, young science, and those in the field who take the dogma at face value are losing great opportunity to explore our world! From the in-classroom perspective, thermal gradient, plate tectonics and other theories are taught as law, with no acknowledgment to the fact that they are theories. Much the same way Darwinian evolution is presented in biology. I'd love to spend a moment on alternate theories in class, (even if it were to just here the profs debunk!)

Originally posted by PuterMan

This is my point exactly. The same applies to all this computer modelling - it just does not work properly. Any modelling HAS to be driven by the way the programmer wrote the code. If the programmer got it wrong, the model will put out incorrect results. I don't know a programmer who gets a program right the first time, and thus they go back and tweak the models, and tweak them, and tweak them some more. This is not modelling, this is 'fixing' to make it say what you want it to say. They have a preconceived idea of what the result should be and the programming is written to achieve that result. I have done it myself so I know that happens.

I hear you on this point. I did want to clarify a bit on that topic though. The motive behind the work was to create accurate predictions of plume behavior based on windspeeds, directions, altitudes. The model was very accurate in that regards. I asked the question about air intake and terrain because in their model they found that too-strong winds (or too weak winds) would cause the plume to collapse.

I brought up the example not to show that it was inaccurate, but that the amount of data crunched has a limit. We can't model all the variables of a volcano, let alone a 1000 mile faultline!

reply to post by Disconnected Sociopath
I live close to the New Madrid and have friend in California and we do believe before 2011 is over there will be a major 7-8 mag quake in both places and probably at the same time. That is why the Navy map shows both areas under water. Whe have been told that map is for a pole shift but it does not say pole shift anywhere on it.

The navy map is on this site and it looks like both southern Calf. and Ar. will be affected.


alligatorfarm.wordpress.com...

It is definitely possible in the Southern California region of the San Andreas fault. In the area of highway 14 this is where the mega one could happen. 9.5 to 9.6 magnitude would be possible. The next time the big quake hits on the highway 14 section it should be either 9.5 or 9.6 in magnitude.

If you really want to know the truth about this, check the highway 14 area of the fault line.

Originally posted by coolottieI live close to the New Madrid and have friend in California and we do believe before 2011 is over there will be a major 7-8 mag quake in both places and probably at the same time. That is why the Navy map shows both areas under water. Whe have been told that map is for a pole shift but it does not say pole shift anywhere on it.

The navy map is on this site and it looks like both southern Calf. and Ar. will be affected.


alligatorfarm.wordpress.com...

Unfortunately, the next time the New Madrid has a major event, it will be worse than the California quake. The last 1812 New Madrid quake was 3 times more powerful than the 1964 9.2 Alaskan quake and caused strong shaking over a bigger area than any other quake in recorded history.

The government scientists just always keep downgrading how big the New Madrid quakes are so as not to scare people. But when big quakes hit at New Madrid they are usually at least 9 and most often they are 9.5 to 9.6 and they are actually much worse than say the 9.5 1960 Chilean quake because there is nothing to absorb the waves from them. New Madrid produces by far the most destructive and worst quakes on the planet.

I have been going back over some of my old research on the 1811-12 New Madrid quakes recently and I have noticed that there were some accounts in certain places (far away from where the quakes happened) where people actually made note of the duration of the shaking. Keep in mind that the stronger the quake, the longer the duration generally is, and this also accounts for the amount of energy released, which is what the Richter Scale measures.

There are several accounts where the last 1812 quake was timed. They put it at 12 minutes. Many personal accounts estimated the duration at 5-6 minutes, or 8-10 minutes, or 4-5 minutes, etc. But the accounts where people actually timed it with a clock put it at an astonishing 12 minutes.

When you combine that with the impact felt by people over 5 million square miles and strong shaking (6.0 magnitude equivalency) felt over and area of 2-3 million square miles - it means that quake was far stronger than the 1960 9.5 Chilean quake.

And the scary part is that the 900 A.D. and 1450 A.D. events on the fault were even stronger. I had greatly studied New Madrid many years ago and I had forgotten just how immense those quakes were. With time I had forgotten that all the estimates written about them are purposely lowered so that the public is not alarmed.

But the quakes produced at New Madrid dwarf any other quakes on the planet.

Originally posted by blamethegreys
reply to post by PuterMan

 

I am in school for Geology (obviously) but I am skeptical about everything. I don't voice much opposition in class though, because it would would be pissin' in the wind. I did once make a comment to a professor that 'No one has ever seen a subducted plate' and I got an odd look back from her!

Don't you love 'em. They don't like students questioning them cos they think they should have all the answers. They find students like us threatening. I've had a couple of profs enjoy debate, but they are few and far between. As a mature student (nearly finished thank god) they can't fob me off like they do the younger ones. Offer to shout them a coffee after lectures and pick their brains. It can be heaps of fun.

reply to post by PuterMan


That's too absurd. That doesn't even make sense. Which ones don't exist anymore? I want to know. Where were they? Yeh, must've melted.

Good to challenge your world model. Of course when I said 'see' an earthquake, I didn't mean the results of or the causes of. For every action there is a reaction. Seeing is not believing. Feeling, sensing, hearing.....it's all relevant. It's important to question everything, even our world views. That's why a lot of us are here on these forums isn't it?

reply to post by blamethegreys

Geology is a young, young science, and those in the field who take the dogma at face value are losing great opportunity to explore our world! From the in-classroom perspective, thermal gradient, plate tectonics and other theories are taught as law, with no acknowledgment to the fact that they are theories. Much the same way Darwinian evolution is presented in biology. I'd love to spend a moment on alternate theories in class, (even if it were to just here the profs debunk!)

Perfect! This is exactly the right attitude. There is no place for dogma anywhere, not in religion and not in science.

Science, or geology as we are discussing here, should be about enquiring and about learning and exploring new possibilities. As you say these possibilities can be debunked, but unless they are discussed there is absolutely no chance of any new theories being accepted as they will be rejected out of hand. This is the attitude that was prevalent back in the 15th and 16th century - Galileo etc - and it has NO place in a modern world.

Part of the problem is that most people hate to be proven wrong, thus if your new theory shatters their preconceived ideas they feel hurt. This sort of person should not be a scientist in my opinion.

Keeping this on topic a bit let us take the example of the San Andreas.

Here we have a fault line that they say is a transform fault. The article in the OP makes the suggestion that there is a subduction element. That is probably wrong, but rather than poo-pooing the whole thing should we not look at what the (rather irate) writer was trying to say? I think we should, even if only to be able to say no.

I will ask this question here. Have a think about it. Probably best to answer in the Geophysics thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How many hotspots in the world move in a Westerly direction?