By my recollection this is the very first time that seismic geologists have said that a major earthquake is "imminent" and could happen "any day now".
Hayward Fault Expected to Let Go
Hayward Fault Expected to Let Go
Any day now in geology means something different than normal usage I think.
The little quakes do not relieve pressure. Hence it has no impact on the probability of the big one.
“The past five major earthquakes on the fault have been about 140 years apart, and now we’re 147 years from that 1868 earthquake, so we definitely feel that could happen any time,” Brocher said.
Any day now is kind of a relative term, especially when it comes to earthquake forecasting. We can't pin it down to an exact period of time, the assumption being made is that large earthquakes on this fault are vaguely periodic so the recurrence interval and time since last major event are being used to say that the probability of a large event in the near future is high (i.e. "any day now").
How do scientists go from geologic time scales to such tiny prediction periods?
This is based on our understanding of past earthquake activity on a fault and assumption about fault behavior based on this past record. By studying the geology near the fault (basically, by digging trenches across the fault and doing detailed analysis of the disruption of different layers and dating various layers) we can develop a chronology of past earthquake events. When we do this, one of the quantities that we are interested in is the recurrence interval, which is the average time between large events (the size of a "large event" being dependent on the fault, for some faults the largest event possible might be a M5, where as other faults might be capable of generating a M7, etc). Some faults are more periodic than others, meaning that the average recurrence interval is a good approximation of the time between individual events (or put another way, the standard deviation of all the times between events would be small).
No. Im pretty sure they do. I really doubt, based on the article, that these guys mean, this will go off any time in the next few weeks.No, it doesn't. Geologists routinely deal with expanded ranges of time that the rest of us generally don't consider, but they don't hyperbolize.
No. Im pretty sure they do. I really doubt, based on the article, that these guys mean, this will go off any time in the next few weeks.
Any day now to me means within the month. Do you really think the guy is saying between now and Labor Day there will be a relatively large earthquake on this fault. Or do you really think he means - sometime between now and 2020. Im guessing is closer to the later.
Edit: I should have read the rest of the thread - which clearly backs it up, in facts its even less dire than I thought they meant. Any day now, means, as it always does in geology, sometime in my lifetime.
No, you're still wrong - because as it turns out, "The phrase "any day now" was only spoken by the reporter Andria Borba."
I'll see your Future's So Bright and raise you an It's The End Of The World As We Know It.
I'll see your Future's So Bright and raise you an It's The End Of The World As We Know It.
Alrighty then, the thread about mold is starting to look more appealing....
Without consulting the internet, anyone recall the most powerful earthquake in recorded history in the continental US?
Not surprising that the media sensationalized the geologist's comments. In general, science literacy is really low in the media and the general public, which is why so many people believe in ghosts, superstitions and completely untested/unproven herbal remedies (and think vaccines are dangerous).
Sorry, gotta go with REM on this one - never was a fan of King Missile. Try this one on...
Winner, winner, chicken dinner...until I looked it up, lol. I always thought it was the New Madrid earthquakes in 1811-1812 and I also though the consensus was 8.3-8.4, but not according to the USGS, which has the three at 7.7-7.8, but has one in the Cascades and three in Cali ahead of these. Oh well.My guess is that it would be the New Madrid quake, which was... 1830s? 1850? It was prior to the invention of seismic measuring equipment but the general consensus is that it was 8+.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner...until I looked it up, lol. I always thought it was the New Madrid earthquakes in 1811-1812 and I also though the consensus was 8.3-8.4, but not according to the USGS, which has the three at 7.7-7.8, but has one in the Cascades and three in Cali ahead of these. Oh well.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/10_largest_us.php
Reminds me of childhood...Sorry, gotta go with REM on this one - never was a fan of King Missile. Try this one on...
You can say what you want about herbal remedies. All I know is that regularly taking alpha lipoic acid (a) keeps ghosts away - I haven't seen so much as one ghost since I started taking it, (b) causes uncontrollable sarcasm and pun creation, and (c) makes my dangly bits tingle.Without consulting the internet, anyone recall the most powerful earthquake in recorded history in the continental US?
Not surprising that the media sensationalized the geologist's comments. In general, science literacy is really low in the media and the general public, which is why so many people believe in ghosts, superstitions and completely untested/unproven herbal remedies (and think vaccines are dangerous).
Well, vaccines ARE dangerous - they cause autism, don't they?Not surprising that the media sensationalized the geologist's comments. In general, science literacy is really low in the media and the general public, which is why so many people believe in ghosts, superstitions and completely untested/unproven herbal remedies (and think vaccines are dangerous).