Reply With Quote
Since we have not got much time, can I have your car and all your available cash?
You won't need anything so thanks.
Hundreds killed in Ecuador tbqh.
Looks like our days are numbered folks.
Since we have not got much time, can I have your car and all your available cash?
You won't need anything so thanks.
RIPs
jeez, just checked back and death toll is at 233, it was 70 just minutes ago
I hear tons of the famous floating houses of Babahoyo are gone and sunk in the water
It natural in the ring of fire.
And people are worried about CO2...
One day the Pacific Northwest will be ed.
Maybe soon...
For those with an attention span and who aren't reverse condescending enough to bypass the article simply because it was published in the New Yorker...
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...really-big-one
Just the coastline.
While I was in boot camp late (60's) in San Diego, we had an earthquake. We were all out sitting up against the barracks walls shining our boots. The Grinder is a huge slab of concrete where we march on, it's about the size of 4 football fields. As we sat there looking out across the Grinder it looked like a wave on the ocean made out of rubber, as it rolled like a tide coming in. Weirdest thing I ever saw, other than the fact there wasn't any damage done at all, no cracks, no nothing.
As ya know we have our quakes somewhere in Cali constantly, and someday.........................
Last edited by Avante; 04-17-2016 at 12:12 PM.
If you think what the article discusses will only impact the coastline and not extend inland through valleys, channels, etc, you're sorely mistaken.
The event the article predicts would effectively end Northern California Oregon and Washington, while impacting Nevada, Idaho, and maybe even Arizona to the south depending how far south California is severed.
The article is a joke.
1) New Yorker.
2) The author is far from an expert.
3) Very poorly sourced.
Some of the things said are flat out impossible. That much mass in so few minutes...
Yeh... right...
What are they high on?
Sure. Anti-Intelligence Condescension. Gotcha.
As a former journalist, that's one of the best investigative, best sourced, best researched articles I've ever read. Is it going to happen? Maybe. Maybe not. But to discredit it as you have is laughable.
.
Last edited by .G.; 04-17-2016 at 01:29 PM. Reason: Meh
OK, I missed the source material. Will you point it out to me please?
Read the article.
This was like asking for it.I hear tons of the famous floating houses of Babahoyo are gone and sunk in the water
Anything would have swept these badly constructed houses down. RIP
Forgot about the 6.9 quake in Burma just days ago.
5 6.8+ quakes in a week. And the seismologist conclude its all a coincidence
What is crazy is the interpretation by the author that the land would slide upward upon the subduction zone, having as much movement as what would be needed to cause the damage claimed.
Chris is a respected scientist, but his worse case scenarios are being amplified by a journalist ignorant of science.
He warns of the big one only causing a 43 ft. tsusami:
from: OSU quake expert Chris Goldfinger warns his own school not to build in Newport's tsunami zonePicture survivors, including injured, disabled and elderly people in a driving rain, attempting to negotiate a mile of rough, liquefied sandbar strewn with live power lines. Imagine their plight as 43-foot tsunami waves rip apart the Yaquina Bay Bridge, large ships and a liquefied-natural-gas tank -- turning them into projectiles.
It would take one so much larger to cross the mountains into the Willamette Valley.
As for the inland faults breaking up and causing severe damage, that is always possible. But is isn't going to move no 6 ft. vertically and 30 to 100 feet horizontally in the process. The degree of which the plates would have to move for that I think would be a world level extinction event. When we have large earthquakes, vertical movement under the ocean causes tsunamis and horizontal movement does not. As noted above, Chis is only warning of a 43 ft. tsunami. Not one of the Hollywood tsunamis.
Here is an image from his works that indicate "the big one" is due:
He lead a 13 years study of which I skimmed over looking for the numbers in the New Porker, and didn't see them. The large land movement he speaks I noted is not of the inland fault lines, but at the point where the two plates meet. This wouldn't cause no mega tsunami, because the volume of the water in the area remains relatively unchanged. Definitely shaken... not stirred...
Here is the study for your review:
Turbidite Event History—Methods and Implications for
Holocene Paleoseismicity of the Cascadia Subduction Zone
Please locate these alarming numbers for us.
Oh...
As for the alarmist that The New Yorker is regular player of, look at what Snopes says:
FEMA Failer
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-17-2016 at 07:52 PM.
Celestial alignments can play a part in such things. The gravitation of aligned planets and moon can be "the straw that broke the camels back." I don't know if that's in play here, but when something is at the breaking point, it doesn't take much to make it happen. It is also possible that the vibration of one, triggered the next.Forgot about the 6.9 quake in Burma just days ago.
5 6.8+ quakes in a week. And the seismologist conclude its all a coincidence
Coincidence, no. Something triggered them.
Who said they were coincidental? Have any names/links?
Oh...
Just ask Boutons. It's from fracking!
Cool. So don't simply say there are no sources. The article is littered with heads of and well regarded scientists, etc. explain where the article hyperbolizes and exaggerates more than it should.What is crazy is the interpretation by the author that the land would slide upward upon the subduction zone, having as much movement as what would be needed to cause the damage claimed.
Chris is a respected scientist, but his worse case scenarios are being amplified by a journalist ignorant of science.
He warns of the big one only causing a 43 ft. tsusami:
from: OSU quake expert Chris Goldfinger warns his own school not to build in Newport's tsunami zone
It would take one so much larger to cross the mountains into the Willamette Valley.
As for the inland faults breaking up and causing severe damage, that is always possible. But is isn't going to move no 6 ft. vertically and 30 to 100 feet horizontally in the process. The degree of which the plates would have to move for that I think would be a world level extinction event. When we have large earthquakes, vertical movement under the ocean causes tsunamis and horizontal movement does not. As noted above, Chis is only warning of a 43 ft. tsunami. Not one of the Hollywood tsunamis.
Here is an image from his works that indicate "the big one" is due:
He lead a 13 years study of which I skimmed over looking for the numbers in the New Porker, and didn't see them. The large land movement he speaks I noted is not of the inland fault lines, but at the point where the two plates meet. This wouldn't cause no mega tsunami, because the volume of the water in the area remains relatively unchanged. Definitely shaken... not stirred...
Here is the study for your review:
Turbidite Event History—Methods and Implications for
Holocene Paleoseismicity of the Cascadia Subduction Zone
Please locate these alarming numbers for us.
Oh...
As for the alarmist that The New Yorker is regular player of, look at what Snopes says:
FEMA Failer
You say the article predicts something that couldn't happen, but simply said there were no sources. This data you provided is great. I'm fascinated by the claim of a west coast earthquake, and found this article to be very engaging.
Thanks for adding these. In the future I'll likely list what you've said alongside as an aside.
EDIT: in rereading your "source material" post, I realize I simplified the request to that of "sources" as in whom the article quotes, cites, and not the data. Thanks for providing the data. It's a good topic for discussion with my family in that area. Have some professor friends that teach in Vancouver as well.
I don't know but it was on the MSN news reel. Seismologists say its all a coincidence
It's actually 13 days between the last four.Forgot about the 6.9 quake in Burma just days ago.
5 6.8+ quakes in a week. And the seismologist conclude its all a coincidence
I seldom use wiki for a source, but I find it accurate when not dealing with topics free of agenda driven input.
I did a little number crunching. That isn't so uncommon, and with the frequency of such earthquakes, it is still statistically within its random parameters we see. If we look at 7.0+ earthquakes, we have seen five in these first 107 days, which averages to one every 21.4 days. The average since 2006 has been one every 23.1 days, so this isn't so uncommon. For the year since 2006, the numbers were:
2006 33.2
2007 20.3
2008 30.5
2009 21.5
2010 16.6
2011 18.3
2012 21.6
2013 19.2
2014 30.4
2015 19.2
Now if we use 4.0 and above earthquakes, we are well below average so far at 9.1 per day, vs the 2006 to 2015 average of 36.7 per day.
March of last year and this year, we had one each 7.0 or higher with no deaths. April 2015 had one 7.0 and above with 8,964 deaths. So far this April, two at 7.0+ and only 238 deaths.
LOL...I don't know but it was on the MSN news reel. Seismologists say its all a coincidence
What were his credentials
What does it tell you about a scientist willing to be on MSNBC?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
