West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture

reply to post by Jerisa



I believe he means Fife, WA (Washington State)

Zip Code: 98424

reply to post by eriktheawful


yes i do,
thank you

reply to post by Jerisa


There is a Fife, WA which borders the Seattle-Tacoma area.

Oops....someone beat me to it.

Originally posted by violence=answer
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

yes i do,
thank you

On Fife website - this is the first Monday so guessing this is the cause.

Fife Emergency Test Link

Notices & Road Closure Information Levee Road Traffic Revision Emergency Drill Information On the first Monday of each month at noon, Pierce County Emergency Management will test the 17 outdoor lahar warning sirens in the Puyallup River Valley.

reply to post by Vasa Croe


wow
thanks
here i am not even knowing that fife (washington state) even had a web site


THANKS!!!!!

reply to post by violence=answer


No problemo!
2nd

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I don't know how often I can look in, and notifications don't seem automatic, but this place looks very interesting. If posting here gets me on the wrong lists, well, so could having the wrong name, or the wrong person misdial my cell phone. I can't worry about everything.

reply to post by JohnVidale


You're a brave soul for using your real name. Or a fool.

I at least would have gone with ShmonShmidale.

I'm too boring to offend anyone, and it seems more natural to talk as though I am myself.

reply to post by ColAngus


When I expressed a similar sentiment to a poster in the Fukushima mega thread, he responded with the following:

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

 

Those with knowledge, know already.
Those with ability can find out.
Those with neither knowledge nor ability do not worry me.

I don't even pull EXIF data off my photos anymore

edit on 1-4-2011 by SFA437 because: Humor

Since then I've been a lot less worried about being "found out." in fact, if one looks diligently through my signature threads, one could find out exactly who I am.

If TPTB have an issue wtih me, they can stuff that in a very uncomfortable place!

If something were to "happen" to me then I'm certain the people of ATS would be all over it.



More specifically, welcome John!

And thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with us interested laypersons.

You should have one of those nifty "ATS Subjet matter expert" logos for your profile.

Oh, and boring does not necessarily mean uninteresting to those who are purported to "watch" this site.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


It seems those "subject matter expert" badges require one to demonstrate good forum decorum and helpfulness, as well as expertise.

So one doesn't qualify immediately.

reply to post by JohnVidale


Well so far, from what I've seen you're well in your way. Even putting up with TA's seemingly aggressive questioning. He means well and you've been a real trooper in answering him in the various threads.

Anyway, welcome aboard and look forward to more contributions from a real "insider," as it were.

It looks like the southern end of the CSZ has been experiencing another bit of slow slip over the past 3 days.
32.9 hours / 563 epicenters
Map Source (sorry for the scroll--I didn't crop enough width)



Just thought I would respond here, for efficiency...

Originally posted by JohnVidale
reply to post by Olivine

 

Olivine - great name. Apparently I haven't yet permission to use the messaging system here, meant to mention that I liked your posts on the Rainier thread.

Thank you, Sir!
The moniker suits me.
I forgot to mention that you need 20 posts (I think that's the magic number), before you can send a message.
My post quality ebbs and flows, but thank you for the kind word.

reply to post by Olivine


We wrote "ebbs and wanes" in a Physics Today manuscript that came out last month, and no one noticed until we were nearly done that makes no sense, and corrected it to waxes and wanes. Oops, I just checked and they didn't correct it! Slow-slip tremor amplitude ebbs and wanes with tidal stressing, whereas normal earthquakes show almost no correlation with the tides.

Sorry, getting off topic here.

reply to post by JohnVidale


Cool....glad you found your way here John. We don't always make sense and I love to speculate, but a lot of us try to at least keep it somewhat science based.

Always good to have another member with knowledge such as yourself. Thank you in advance for putting up with us.

@Olivine...I've noticed some nice clusters. So. Another moderate quake soon up North? Say about where the last 4.1 occured off Vancouver?

reply to post by JohnVidale


John, I'm positive you are the only one who noticed it--until you pointed it out here, lol.
But since you mentioned this...Slow-slip tremor amplitude ebbs and wanes with tidal stressing...I have a question.
So the current ETS episode is affected by lunar perigee occurring March 10th and the coming full moon in 2 days?

@westcoast.
I was thinking about you when I posted the tremor map. Your yin-yang correlation has been spot on in recent months.

reply to post by Olivine


Now I think they might have corrected it, but I was just checking the pdf that I received for proofreading.

With regard to tremor and the tides, basically we saw more tremor when the water was high, which correlates with when the stress was high. When the Moon and/or Sun are close, the water can get very high, but also very low. So at perigee, the twice-a-day modulation of the tides would be more marked; it would not be the case that the days would have more tremor overall.

This is also the weakness of theories of biweekly variation in earthquake rates, such as Jim Berkland espouses. All the observed variation of earthquakes with tidal stresses have been for diurnal tides, not biweekly tides. Syzygy is nonsense in the sense that no one has ever documented it, and many, including me, have tried.

Well I was happy to abandon the thread a week ago, but the quakes, they keep coming:

4.4 off Oregon again.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Interesting you guys are using body wave magnitude for the bigger ones, and duration magnitude for the smaller ones. That's the first 5 seconds of the P-wave- effectively abandoning S-wave components? Does the type of magnitude calculation vary depending on how long the quake is in the catalog? Like for example, will Ms or Mw be calculated eventually for that quake?

Originally posted by JohnVidale
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

I don't know how often I can look in, and notifications don't seem automatic, but this place looks very interesting. If posting here gets me on the wrong lists, well, so could having the wrong name, or the wrong person misdial my cell phone. I can't worry about everything.

Real name or not...glad you are here John.

ATS just gets better.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Interesting you guys are using body wave magnitude for the bigger ones, and duration magnitude for the smaller ones. That's the first 5 seconds of the P-wave- effectively abandoning S-wave components? Does the type of magnitude calculation vary depending on how long the quake is in the catalog? Like for example, will Ms or Mw be calculated eventually for that quake?

An Mb would have to come from NEIC. We only estimate Md for the tiny quakes, ML, or in the biggest cases, an MW. Our Md or ML would be immediate, but only since we switched to new software in December. The MW will take us some time to calculate, although it might be immediate in the future.

As you note, Mb is a strange measure, which originated from discriminating nuclear tests from earthquakes. Even a big nuke would let out its energy in the first few seconds (or much less), and score a big Mb but moderate MS, while a big earthquake would take much longer, and have a littler Mb but a huge MS. But then my wife, in her thesis with Hiroo Kanamori, invented the Mb-hat (not sure how to put the little hat over the b) scale, which measured the peak short-period P amplitude anywhere in the P wave train. It still saturates, but continues to grow with magnitude even up to the biggest quakes.

MS is mostly obsolete - MW covers the same range for regional networks, and is more universal.