Is California doomed?

[jayjayj 571]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Swarm-of-earthquakes-hit-Monterey-County-felt-in-12354131.php

 

"A 4.6-magnitude earthquake rattled Monterey County on Monday and was felt more than 90 miles away in San Francisco, officials said.

The quake hit at 11:31 a.m. about 13 miles northeast of Gonzales, near Salinas, and was followed by nine smaller aftershocks, with the largest measuring magnitude 2.8, said Annemarie Baltay, a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park."

[Dashinka 24,828]

California had a mild earthquake?  Is this newsworthy?

[jayjayj 571]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

California had a mild earthquake?  Is this newsworthy?

The swarms seem to be increasing and statistically speaking it is only a matter of time until the big one hits.  The big one is what worries me.  

[bcking 3,157]

33 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

The swarms seem to be increasing and statistically speaking it is only a matter of time until the big one hits.  The big one is what worries me.  

I'm no geologist but I was always under the impression that increased activity, like we are seeing now, can be a sign of larger activity down the road. But I may be confusing earthquakes with volcanoes though (or maybe it's true for both). My wife (geologist) talks about this kind of stuff all the time and I have to admit I'm not always retaining the information.

 

On the other hand, I hear people talk a lot about how because there hasn't been a "big one" in over 100 years that California is somehow "overdo" and therefore is "bound to have a big one" at any moment. In that context I've seen many people argue "Well statistically speaking, they are overdo for one".

 

Using statistics in that argument though is a wrong, in my opinion. I don't think anyone has actually shown data to suggest that a long period of "calm" somehow increases the chances of a large earthquake in the future. In the absence of that data, you have to consider the chance of having a large earthquake as static, meaning it doesn't change over time. Therefore, California always has a 1% chance of it occurring (or whatever the number is) each year, regardless of how much time has passed. It would be similar to saying that because there is a 50% chance of flipping a coin and getting heads, that after 100 tails it is "only a matter of time" before heads occurs. There is actually still the exact same percentage chance of heads occurring as there was when the very first toss.

 

 

[jayjayj 571]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm no geologist but I was always under the impression that increased activity, like we are seeing now, can be a sign of larger activity down the road. But I may be confusing earthquakes with volcanoes though (or maybe it's true for both). My wife (geologist) talks about this kind of stuff all the time and I have to admit I'm not always retaining the information.

 

On the other hand, I hear people talk a lot about how because there hasn't been a "big one" in over 100 years that California is somehow "overdo" and therefore is "bound to have a big one" at any moment. In that context I've seen many people argue "Well statistically speaking, they are overdo for one".

 

Using statistics in that argument though is a wrong, in my opinion. I don't think anyone has actually shown data to suggest that a long period of "calm" somehow increases the chances of a large earthquake in the future. In the absence of that data, you have to consider the chance of having a large earthquake as static, meaning it doesn't change over time. Therefore, California always has a 1% chance of it occurring (or whatever the number is) each year, regardless of how much time has passed. It would be similar to saying that because there is a 50% chance of flipping a coin and getting heads, that after 100 tails it is "only a matter of time" before heads occurs. There is actually still the exact same percentage chance of heads occurring as there was when the very first toss.

 

 

I've always been under the impression that the constant moving and grinding of the tectonic plates increases the likelihood or chance of a major earthquake over a period of time.  The tension between the plates continues to build, only resetting after a major earthquake.  So for instance, say your likelihood of winning the lottery is 1 in 1 billion.  Your chances of winning would always be the same, no matter how many times the lottery draw occurs - head vs tails.  But if you remove 100,000 people or number combinations every week, crude example I realize, after a period of time your chances of winning the lottery are going to be pretty good.  That isn't a great example of what I was trying to express, but I think you will get the general idea.  

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, jayjayj said:

I've always been under the impression that the constant moving and grinding of the tectonic plates increases the likelihood or chance of a major earthquake over a period of time.  The tension between the plates continues to build, only resetting after a major earthquake.  So for instance, say your likelihood of winning the lottery is 1 in 1 billion.  Your chances of winning would always be the same, no matter how many times the lottery draw occurs - head vs tails.  But if you remove 100,000 people or number combinations every week, crude example I realize, after a period of time your chances of winning the lottery are going to be pretty good.  That isn't a great example of what I was trying to express, but I think you will get the general idea.  

I'm not sure that is true though.

 

I know that there is data that increased activity can predict greater activity in the short term...

 

However if after that short term a big event doesn't occur, I'm not sure that it continues to be cumulative.

 

So say there isn't a big earthquake soon, after the increased activity we are seeing right now. I'm not sure how long before the "baseline percent chance" gets reset, or if it ever does. We just don't know, so I don't think it is necessarily right to just say California is "overdue" because the last major earthquake was 100+ years ago. I realize that isn't what you were saying though, just something I brought up because I find the discussion interesting.

Edited November 14, 2017 by bcking

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

49 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

I've always been under the impression that the constant moving and grinding of the tectonic plates increases the likelihood or chance of a major earthquake over a period of time.  The tension between the plates continues to build, only resetting after a major earthquake.  So for instance, say your likelihood of winning the lottery is 1 in 1 billion.  Your chances of winning would always be the same, no matter how many times the lottery draw occurs - head vs tails.  But if you remove 100,000 people or number combinations every week, crude example I realize, after a period of time your chances of winning the lottery are going to be pretty good.  That isn't a great example of what I was trying to express, but I think you will get the general idea.  

 

1 hour ago, bcking said:

I'm no geologist but I was always under the impression that increased activity, like we are seeing now, can be a sign of larger activity down the road. But I may be confusing earthquakes with volcanoes though (or maybe it's true for both). My wife (geologist) talks about this kind of stuff all the time and I have to admit I'm not always retaining the information.

 

On the other hand, I hear people talk a lot about how because there hasn't been a "big one" in over 100 years that California is somehow "overdo" and therefore is "bound to have a big one" at any moment. In that context I've seen many people argue "Well statistically speaking, they are overdo for one".

 

Using statistics in that argument though is a wrong, in my opinion. I don't think anyone has actually shown data to suggest that a long period of "calm" somehow increases the chances of a large earthquake in the future. In the absence of that data, you have to consider the chance of having a large earthquake as static, meaning it doesn't change over time. Therefore, California always has a 1% chance of it occurring (or whatever the number is) each year, regardless of how much time has passed. It would be similar to saying that because there is a 50% chance of flipping a coin and getting heads, that after 100 tails it is "only a matter of time" before heads occurs. There is actually still the exact same percentage chance of heads occurring as there was when the very first toss.

 

 

Disclaimer: I am not a Geologist at all. I just work on the equipment and the network that supplies ALL of this data to the Geologists and the other Scientists. So you have to actually have some type of comprehension about the data and what is actually going on to actually repair the equipment, also you pick up alot from Osmosis from the Geologists. As I have said previously on here I work for a unnamed Earthquake monitoring place in SoCal. 

 

Just because there is a swarm of smaller earthquakes does not necessarily mean that there will be a big one at all, the swarm can either come and go or just get stronger. We get swarms like that all the time underneath the Salton Sea and El Centro/Brawley area, but that's mainly because that place is so seismically active. 

 

What I have told people "Unofficially of course" is that there is alot of seismic activity going on within the last 2 years happening all across the pacific rim. If you look at the map pretty much ever region across the region has had a significant(6+) quake except for the region from Baja Mexico to Southern Alaska. This whole region has been really quite  in perspective compared to the rest of the world. I say quite because there has been alot of 3's, 4's and a couple high 4's in the middle of no where but nothing more significant than there. 

 

According to this crazy guy that I saw last week while going out to a site he is "feeling all kinds of P and S waves, so something big is coming". Which honestly is very typical for my job because everybody and I mean everybody from the Cowboy herder in the New Cuyama area to the Vato in San Bernardino area  comes up to talk about earthquakes. 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

43 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm not sure that is true though.

 

I know that there is data that increased activity can predict greater activity in the short term...

 

However if after that short term a big event doesn't occur, I'm not sure that it continues to be cumulative.

 

So say there isn't a big earthquake soon, after the increased activity we are seeing right now. I'm not sure how long before the "baseline percent chance" gets reset, or if it ever does. We just don't know, so I don't think it is necessarily right to just say California is "overdue" because the last major earthquake was 100+ years ago. I realize that isn't what you were saying though, just something I brought up because I find the discussion interesting.

It does not get reset as far as we know. Some places are just prone to swarms, while other places are not. 
 

There is one thing you forgot as well when talking about an earthquake. That is it is not always how intense the earthquake is, but how close to the surface it is that could affect and damage property. If a 5.4 earthquake happened at 10 miles down and a different but same intensity at 5 miles down. You would swear up and down that the one at 5 miles down was more intense and stronger than the one at 10 miles down. 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, cyberfx1024 said:

It does not get reset as far as we know. Some places are just prone to swarms, while other places are not. 
 

There is one thing you forgot as well when talking about an earthquake. That is it is not always how intense the earthquake is, but how close to the surface it is that could affect and damage property. If a 5.4 earthquake happened at 10 miles down and a different but same intensity at 5 miles down. You would swear up and down that the one at 5 miles down was more intense and stronger than the one at 10 miles down. 

Since you know far more about the topic than I do -

 

Would you agree that the time from the last "major earthquake" in California (>100 years ago) is irrelevant to the odds of California having another "major earthquake" of a similar scale?

 

Time passing, on its own, doesn't increase the risk of an earthquake to my knowledge, but I'm wondering if I'm right?

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

Since you know far more about the topic than I do -

 

Would you agree that the time from the last "major earthquake" in California (>100 years ago) is irrelevant to the odds of California having another "major earthquake" of a similar scale?

 

Time passing, on its own, doesn't increase the risk of an earthquake to my knowledge, but I'm wondering if I'm right?

Overall it does not mean that the odds are going to get worse for a major earthquake if more time goes by between large earthquakes.  But it does mean that there is more pent up energy so to speak that needs to be released if there is seismic activity but no large event to happen. 

 

You can look at the swarms in either one of two ways: 

 

1. The swarm is releasing energy and pressure from the plate, which could mean that there won't be a large earthquake because of that. 

2. The swarm is actually causing more pressure to be put on the plates which means that when it goes, it will go big time. 

 

If there is a significant swarm where you can actually earthquakes increasing along with the intensity then there is a problem. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

I just looked at the integrated map that we have at that swarm, and there are whole lot of 2's and then a 4.1 yesterday morning. Also it's right along the San Andreas as well which means that what happens we will know about it because we have stations all along the San Andreas and other smaller faults. 

[-Trinity- 513]

2 hours ago, jayjayj said:

The swarms seem to be increasing and statistically speaking it is only a matter of time until the big one hits.  The big one is what worries me.  

California had bigger ones in the past

Edited November 14, 2017 by Beachlover
First post wasn't constructive

[Dashinka 24,828]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

I'm no geologist but I was always under the impression that increased activity, like we are seeing now, can be a sign of larger activity down the road. But I may be confusing earthquakes with volcanoes though (or maybe it's true for both). My wife (geologist) talks about this kind of stuff all the time and I have to admit I'm not always retaining the information.

 

On the other hand, I hear people talk a lot about how because there hasn't been a "big one" in over 100 years that California is somehow "overdo" and therefore is "bound to have a big one" at any moment. In that context I've seen many people argue "Well statistically speaking, they are overdo for one".

 

Using statistics in that argument though is a wrong, in my opinion. I don't think anyone has actually shown data to suggest that a long period of "calm" somehow increases the chances of a large earthquake in the future. In the absence of that data, you have to consider the chance of having a large earthquake as static, meaning it doesn't change over time. Therefore, California always has a 1% chance of it occurring (or whatever the number is) each year, regardless of how much time has passed. It would be similar to saying that because there is a 50% chance of flipping a coin and getting heads, that after 100 tails it is "only a matter of time" before heads occurs. There is actually still the exact same percentage chance of heads occurring as there was when the very first toss.

 

 

Ask your wife when you get the chance what is the most powerful earthquake the CA fault system may see.  My understanding (also not a geologist) is that subduction faults like off the coast of Japan, or SA generate the big mega thrust quakes.  I thought the CA fault systems were transform, or slip/strike faults.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Ask your wife when you get the chance what is the most powerful earthquake the CA fault system may see.  My understanding (also not a geologist) is that subduction faults like off the coast of Japan, or SA generate the big mega thrust quakes.  I thought the CA fault systems were transform, or slip/strike faults.

I will.

 

Granted she'll know more about general principles than California specifically. Being UK-trained her education was more on the geological formations in the UK and maybe Europe. Her work has pushed that to the North Seattle, South America and SE Asia but I don't know if she know that much specific about California.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Ask your wife when you get the chance what is the most powerful earthquake the CA fault system may see.  My understanding (also not a geologist) is that subduction faults like off the coast of Japan, or SA generate the big mega thrust quakes.  I thought the CA fault systems were transform, or slip/strike faults.

They are predominantly more slip faults, you are correct in that.