http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20151...310219753/
EXCERPT: There is a 99.9 percent chance of a magnitude-5 or greater earthquake striking within three years in the greater Los Angeles area, where a similar sized temblor caused more the $12 million in damage last year, according to a study by NASA and university researchers....
Great. Even more reasons for smug californicators to move up here to Portland and raise our already sky high apartment rents. All itinerant Yazatas WILL be promptly apprehended at the border!
Magnitude 5 is just a moderate earthquake. It wouldn't be a huge disaster.
I hear that the US Geological Survey isn't happy with NASA putting this out, since the geologists at USGS aren't convinced by NASA's methodology.
But yeah, everyone agrees that a large earthquake is inevitable sometime in the LA area, perhaps sooner than later. Just maybe not 99.9% in 3 years.
(Oct 22, 2015 06:11 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]EXCERPT: There is a 99.9 percent chance of a magnitude-5 or greater earthquake striking within three years in the greater Los Angeles area, where a similar sized temblor caused more the $12 million in damage last year, according to a study by NASA and university researchers....
That in a post dated October 22, 2015. So we should know whether NASA knew what they were talking about in 8 months.
We had a 4.4 here a while ago and far from wrecking my house, actually repaired a door that had been sticking badly before the quake, but opens and closes easily afterward.
If the west coast is sliding neath the waves then does that affect the east coast? Over the next few hundred millions of years, where does all that disappearing west coastline end up? I'm pretty sure it gets recycled and will eventually be topside again, tectonic and volcanic forces permitting.
In 20 days the 3 years will be up.
(Oct 2, 2018 08:32 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ] (Oct 2, 2018 07:29 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]In 20 days the 3 years will be up.
No margin for error?
Given that a major earthquake in Los Angeles is inevitable if we wait long enough, if we make that "3 years" elastic enough, it's gonna happen.
Just given the geology, the way that the San Andreas fault generally runs north-south up past San Francisco, but suddenly makes a sharp turn east just north of LA under the San Gabriel mountains, before going south again into Mexico and the Gulf of California, one would imagine that huge stresses are building up under LA and the mountains around LA.
So while I would expect more frequent smaller quakes near San Francisco, if only because the plates can move more easily up here, I expect LA to enjoy longer stretches between big earthquakes because the plates appear more locked-up there, but the earthquakes in LA to be much bigger when they occur.
That's all just my layman's guess though.
(Oct 22, 2015 08:26 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Magnitude 5 is just a moderate earthquake. It wouldn't be a huge disaster.
I hear that the US Geological Survey isn't happy with NASA putting this out, since the geologists at USGS aren't convinced by NASA's methodology.
But yeah, everyone agrees that a large earthquake is inevitable sometime in the LA area, perhaps sooner than later. Just maybe not 99.9% in 3 years.
statistical probability etc...
movement of the plates at a certain rate over tens of thousands of years.
frequency of quakes in various zones.
rough average of frequency of large quakes
main fault lines and repeated fault lines of large movements
modern technology allows a better idea to evaluate a statistical probability.
soo much so they use a type of computer on the stock exchange ?