There have just been too many in the past few days. I can't stand earthquakes and we always hear we are due for a big one. I for one am starting to get worried about these frequent little quakes,I really hope it doesn't lead to something bigger.
Earthquakes are my business. There are two schools of thought. Some feel that the little earthquakes help alleviate the pressure built up on the faults meaning that the catastrophis quake is avoided. And others subscribe to the "where there is smoke, there is fire" argument that states, that these are warning shots. Howaever a 6.5 earthquake is pretty damn big. I can't imagine another hit of that magnitude hitting up in the Eureka area in awhile. Now, the Hayward fault in the Bay Area is overdue for a big one. And I will go on record now, when that one goes, it is going to be huge and DEVASTATE the bay area. Based off the length and depth of that fault line, I don;t think an earthquake over a 7.5 is possible for it, but that is pretty damn big. Keep in mind on the Richter scale, the difference between a 7.2 and a 7.3 (or a 4.5 and a 4.6 or any other .1 difference), is 1,000 times greater in force, I believe.
Same here,I just keep hearing people say for the past year that all these small quakes are leading up to a big one. I don't really know if to believe it but these small quakes that the state has been getting lately has caught my attention. We just have been really lucky in California in the past few years with quiet fault lines that give small quakes,I just hope that no large magnitude quake hits. Anyways,stay safe.
The scale is logrithmic (base10). There is a 10x change in shaking amplitude for each point. A 6.0 earthquake has 10X more shaking amplitude than a 5.0 earthquake. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/richter.php I agree the next big (7.1+) earthquake will cause massive damage to the Bay area, largely because after some major earthquakes in their past, sand was pumped out of the ocean and used to fill in areas that had liquefied during the earthquake. In other words, soil failure caused by liquefaction was "fixed" by filling the area with liquefiable soil. The 7.1 figure was not chosen arbitrarily. The US Geological Survey predicts that ~73% of the Bay area coast line and well into the city will liquefy in an earthquake of 7.1 or greater. See the map at the link below http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/alameda/ Here are some resources if you happen to live in the Bay area of California. http://quake.abag.ca.gov/liquefac/liquefac.html
Yeah, yeah Mal, what do you know Not like your doing a Doctorate thesis or anything on this..... Oh wait. Always good to see signs of you, and thanks for the info. I agree the area is way overdue. Any chance the big one hits out at sea instead and releaves some of the Tectonic K-energy built up?
I am not familiar with K-energy and could not find a definition through a Google search but a big earthquake at sea is possible and they happen often. My biggest concern with earthquakes at sea is possibility of an tsunami. I work closely with a Ph.D. Geotechnical Engineer who specializes in earthquakes. I'll see what he knows about K-energy. As an aside, Kenny, my graduation date has been moved up to December of this year. anic: I have lots to do and only a year to finish before they drag me onto a stage and throw a hood and diploma at me.
Kinetic Energy is what I was referring to Mal. The pressure in the plates would be generating some very interesting amount of Kinetic energy I would imagine. I would ikmagine there are some sort of improvised strain guages keeping some sort of eye on the enormous rubberbands being stretched? Nothing but good thoughts Brother.
