canucks since 77 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Kinda off topic but still about earthquakes... Vancouver is pretty far from the faultline (150 km?) but damage will still be very bad? Stupid question maybe but im curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrudeauVoter Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 It will be very bad. The sunami generated will not have any time to lose energy . Far better for the epicenter to be on land, but It's not going to happen that way. Seatle, Victoria,Gulf Islands,Surrey,Delta,and many more will suffer greatly due to placidity and the "it wont happen to us" attitude. On the other side, Vancouver Island being sparsly populated will suffer less damage and will hopefully act as a barrier to the tsunami and lessen the damage on the southern westcoast mainland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 MadMonk, take a step back here for a minute. If you look at that program, you will see that it is done after, and in response to the Japan megaquake, which was 2011, and after that quake they said, all our conclusions were wrong, and they went back to the drawing board. They then either obtained new mud core data or they re-examined previous mud core samples, but in the show, they show them actually taking mud core samples, after the Japan tsumani, which is in 2011. So, they are essentially saying, we are throwing out all previous conclusions and forget about everything we said, up to that point, because we were wrong. Now, what your doing is, you are throwing 2010 information into the discussion, which is previous to the Japan quake, when they had made different conclsions, that they themselves are now saying were completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I just watched the program again, hadn't seen it in a while, maybe since August. What got me confused is that they talk about 2 different clusters in the program. In segment 4 they talk about 3 quakes in the current cluster, being the 2004, 2010 and 2011 quakes and then ask, how long will this cluster last, suggesting that there could be more. Then, in segment 6, I now do see that there is the cluster that refers only to the cascadia fault, so it is a seperate cluster. Also, the mud core samples taken for cascadia are all from the ocean floor, and these are samples they have been collecting for quite some time, as there are a lot of them. Then, some of the other core samples are taken from inland areas, looking for the sediment left behind by the tsunamis, and these are the recent core samples. They are then combining all that information. So, the issue is that we have very obviously just had a current cluster of megaquakes, being 2004, 2010, and 2011. Then, if there is another quake, in this current cluster, it could very likely be cascadia and also perhaps San Andreas, as they could both go, either together, or right after one another. And, there is evidence in the cascadia cluster that if we are still in that last cluster, the next quake could be huge because the cascadia cluster often ends with the last being the largest. I still say that given the fact that we've had 3 megaquakes in 7 years, the likelyhood of the next being sooner, rather than later, is very liklely, and I still see it as being imminent. The one scientist said that it's possible that each quake transfers more stress onto the next fault, so they go like dominos, does sound plausible, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Aliboy, Clustering, both globally over a decadal timescale and locally over centurial timescale, is indeed an attractive idea, and I think the physical explanation behind it is very plausible too. The difficulty is that the data does not enable us to tell whether it actually happens in nature. To demonstrate this I think you'll either need a very long set of data, or you will need a physical model of the plate tectonics where you can actually show clustering occurring. Without these, you cannot make accurate predictions to how many more earthquakes will come, or where they will strike even assuming that clustering is a genuine phenomenon. Just because the west coast of NA had been quiet so far doesn't mean an earthquake will occur here. After all if you look at the previous "cluster" back in 1960's, it occurred in the northern pacific, chile, and in tibet, and neither Japan, indonesia, or the west coast got hit. Regarding the cascadia 'clusters', it is not true that the last one is always the largest (see T6 in the graph above). Also if you go by the 5 cluster arrangement (figure A), the most recent event T1 is not much different from T13, which ended the 2nd cluster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish⑦Canuck Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Replying late, but as a geology student I can tell you that no respected geologist could tell you the exact date or location of an earthquake. It just isn't possible right now. Maybe in the future if people start to fund some sort of proper research but that's not happening and even if it did it wouldn't be likely anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I said, most recently, that the last one is often the largest, not always. Regardless, they said in the show that the earthquake swarms were happening like clockwork every 14 months, and that these may be the catalyst for the main event. Now, I believe that the last swarm came early, before 14 months, and I will now be watching to see if the next swarm comes early again. It is possible that the gaps between could continue to shorten and then the fault just lets go. It is now an issue of keeping an eye on the swarms to see if the frequency changes. At least, this is what I will be keeping an eye on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucksbiggestfan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I should probably point out that I made my post before I saw yours, and the documentary mention was just a coincidence. I was actually talking about this: Probably my fault for making a joke with a reference to a movie no one has actually seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Regardless, they said in the show that the earthquake swarms were happening like clockwork every 14 months, and that these may be the catalyst for the main event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I will have to go back and check to find the segment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamero89 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 *Yawn, two days left...Any of you ready to stop fearing, everything you are told yet? BTW looked up a lot of past posts from the people legit scared of this(or the "big one"). These people, have also stated in their past posts that they are scared of 2012. I am pretty sure if this forum existed in 1999, I would find these same people fearing Y2K. BTW any immiscible that does believe in 2012 nonsense. The Mayan calendar ended quite awhile ago. I guess none of these conspiracy theorists decided to actually ask an archeologist, you know like how these people who are fearing earthquakes decide to ignore the info regarding top scientists say it will not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollarAndADream Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I really hope I'm not sleeping when this happens. Or it's not night time. I want to have clothes on and be awake lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar baby watermelon Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I really hope I'm not sleeping when this happens. Or it's not night time. I want to have clothes on and be awake lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Which segment did they mention this in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I actually had a very vivid dream we were hit by an earthquake last night........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I swear to god the ground was shaking last night and parts of yesterday...in Kelowna that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weber's Playoff Beard Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 That's like saying if you were in a building that got bombed, and the building collapsed on you, that it wasn't the bomb that caused your death... The earthquake caused the tsunami, which caused most of the damage. No tsunami without the quake. The quake is the root cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Just wanted to clarify that we are no longer discussing the OP in this thread. We are now discussing the evidence presented in the program, "Monster Quake, Are We Next". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22Sedinery33 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I would think it would either be off Oregan Coast, San Francisco or off the coast of Alaska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 oh ok haha I'll have to read up more on that later then. But enough of this for me for now haha, I have wasted too much time today and must get back to work :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.