If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Earthquakes prompt fears over the Ring of Fire, causing people to I'm not even going to finish this thought because you're singing the Johnny Cash song in your head   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 100
    More: Obvious, Chile, Los Angeles, earthquakes, sings, lawsuits, Pacific Rim, fears  
•       •       •

2986 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 5:46 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 03:58:45 PM  
 
2014-04-02 03:59:28 PM  
Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.
 
2014-04-02 04:05:44 PM  
But when does the oil hit the anus fault line?
 
2014-04-02 04:12:12 PM  
 
2014-04-02 04:47:05 PM  
Interesting fact about the Richter scale - now more properly the Moment magnitude scale (MMS)- is that:  it has no upper limit.  It's logarithmic, which means it gets increasingly difficult to increase in magnitude, such that no earthquake over ~9.4 has ever been observed, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Or even unlikely. After all, scientific measurements of these things are only about 100 years old, and estimates of historical quakes are far from precise.

In theory, a 12.0 could obliterate Seattle tomorrow. It's kind of scary to think about.
 
2014-04-02 05:05:38 PM  
Or you could jam to the Earl Scruggs Slingblade edit:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqg-J4yHqM8&feature=kp
 
2014-04-02 05:49:22 PM  

gopher321: But when does the oil hit the anus fault line?


what did one tectonic plate say to the other?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It wasn't my fault.

/all weak
 
2014-04-02 05:50:20 PM  

whistleridge: Interesting fact about the Richter scale - now more properly the Moment magnitude scale (MMS)- is that:  it has no upper limit.  It's logarithmic, which means it gets increasingly difficult to increase in magnitude, such that no earthquake over ~9.4 has ever been observed, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Or even unlikely. After all, scientific measurements of these things are only about 100 years old, and estimates of historical quakes are far from precise.

In theory, a 12.0 could obliterate Seattle tomorrow. It's kind of scary to think about.


According to the USGS while "Theoretically possible", realistically it cannot happen (on earth, I suppose).

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/megaqk_facts_fantasy.php

Important part,

The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the length of the fault on which it occurs -- the longer the fault, the larger the earthquake. The San Andreas Fault is only 800 miles long. To generate an earthquake of 10.5 magnitude would require the rupture of a fault that is many times the length of the San Andreas Fault. No fault long enough to generate a magnitude 10.5 earthquake is known to exist.
 
2014-04-02 05:50:57 PM  
that should be "say to the other after the earthquake".

/still terrible
 
2014-04-02 05:51:10 PM  
I ate a bowl of chilli with Dave's Scorpion Pepper sauce for lunch. So I too am worried about earthquakes and a ring of fire.
 
2014-04-02 05:52:10 PM  
Still would have been the greatest Preparation H commercial ever.
 
2014-04-02 05:54:24 PM  

Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.


how about last month?
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nc72182046#summary
 
2014-04-02 05:55:03 PM  

whistleridge: Interesting fact about the Richter scale - now more properly the Moment magnitude scale (MMS)- is that:  it has no upper limit.  It's logarithmic, which means it gets increasingly difficult to increase in magnitude, such that no earthquake over ~9.4 has ever been observed, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Or even unlikely. After all, scientific measurements of these things are only about 100 years old, and estimates of historical quakes are far from precise.

In theory, a 12.0 could obliterate Seattle tomorrow. It's kind of scary to think about.


It is self limiting as the higher magnitudes become impossible as there isn't a continuous fault fracture of sufficient length to generate such a quake (at least based upon the present understanding of earthquakes). I think something like a 12.0 would require a quake from Seattle, all the way down the Juan de Fuca plate joining the San Andreas and then running down the length of California to the Mexican border. I don't know that it is possible given the way the faults line up and whether they could propagate all the way down but If that would somehow happen, the West coast, Hawaii, coastal Alaska and even the east coast of Asia would be devastated.
 
2014-04-02 05:59:15 PM  
A Boy Named Sue?
 
2014-04-02 06:00:43 PM  
Does this mean that California will FINALLY fall into the ocean?  I usually spend a day or two during my summer break to go out there and jump on the San Andreas in an attempt to make it happen faster.
 
2014-04-02 06:07:34 PM  
The highest suspected in SoCal is estimated as having been a 7.9, and that pretty much blew the a quarter of the San Andreas fault line all at once.  It's not likely that anything higher than an 8 would occur in California - not that an 8 wouldn't be bad enough, especially as it would likely have 6- and 7-point aftershocks.  It literally created ground displacements of up to 30 feet in areas.
 
2014-04-02 06:07:56 PM  

Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.


Hey, we had ours last month. It's the Cascade Subduction Zone's turn.

*Sploosh*

Coastal Oregon, Washington and the outer coast of Vancouver Island slip beneath the waves.
 
2014-04-02 06:08:17 PM  
Scientists still don't have a way to predict when and where earthquakes will hit,

Lazy bastardsshould talk to the Chinese.

www.easterncurio.com
 
2014-04-02 06:09:00 PM  

bobothemagnificent: Does this mean that California will FINALLY fall into the ocean?  I usually spend a day or two during my summer break to go out there and jump on the San Andreas in an attempt to make it happen faster.


No, but it would probably bring Los Angeles and Berkeley closer together.  It's SF that would "fall into the ocean", if anything.
 
2014-04-02 06:09:39 PM  

Daedalus27: whistleridge: Interesting fact about the Richter scale - now more properly the Moment magnitude scale (MMS)- is that:  it has no upper limit.  It's logarithmic, which means it gets increasingly difficult to increase in magnitude, such that no earthquake over ~9.4 has ever been observed, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Or even unlikely. After all, scientific measurements of these things are only about 100 years old, and estimates of historical quakes are far from precise.

In theory, a 12.0 could obliterate Seattle tomorrow. It's kind of scary to think about.

It is self limiting as the higher magnitudes become impossible as there isn't a continuous fault fracture of sufficient length to generate such a quake (at least based upon the present understanding of earthquakes). I think something like a 12.0 would require a quake from Seattle, all the way down the Juan de Fuca plate joining the San Andreas and then running down the length of California to the Mexican border. I don't know that it is possible given the way the faults line up and whether they could propagate all the way down but If that would somehow happen, the West coast, Hawaii, coastal Alaska and even the east coast of Asia would be devastated.


Well, the good news is that a 9.0 would probably put Seattle into the dark ages for a week or so.   And Cascadia is ready to pop open soon.

/ My earthquake rider is paid and up to date.
 
2014-04-02 06:11:17 PM  

Stone Meadow: Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.

Hey, we had ours last month. It's the Cascade Subduction Zone's turn.

*Sploosh*

Coastal Oregon, Washington and the outer coast of Vancouver Island slip beneath the waves.


So its gonna be a while before its the New Madrid's turn right?
 
2014-04-02 06:12:07 PM  
whybecausescience.files.wordpress.com

Actually, it's this song.

AH HO WAH HEE HA HO HO HO
 
2014-04-02 06:14:19 PM  

Professor Farksworth: Stone Meadow: Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.

Hey, we had ours last month. It's the Cascade Subduction Zone's turn.

*Sploosh*

Coastal Oregon, Washington and the outer coast of Vancouver Island slip beneath the waves.

So its gonna be a while before its the New Madrid's turn right?


Sure, it can let go any time, but last I checked it wasn't considered part of the Rim of Fire...unless you count "goin' in dry".
 
2014-04-02 06:15:11 PM  

Stone Meadow: Professor Farksworth: Stone Meadow: Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.

Hey, we had ours last month. It's the Cascade Subduction Zone's turn.

*Sploosh*

Coastal Oregon, Washington and the outer coast of Vancouver Island slip beneath the waves.

So its gonna be a while before its the New Madrid's turn right?

Sure, it can let go any time, but last I checked it wasn't considered part of the Rim of Fire...unless you count "goin' in dry".


Well it was more of "Once the ring is done, it'll move to the other spots"
 
2014-04-02 06:15:26 PM  
I didn't realize there was a song. A Buster Keaton film and a lot of Scotsmen, but not a song.
 
2014-04-02 06:19:56 PM  
Best ad evar: Preparation H commercial set to Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire".

Ah, good times, good times.
 
2014-04-02 06:20:50 PM  

CanuckInCA: Important part,

The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the length of the fault on which it occurs -- the longer the fault, the larger the earthquake. The San Andreas Fault is only 800 miles long. To generate an earthquake of 10.5 magnitude would require the rupture of a fault that is many times the length of the San Andreas Fault. No fault long enough to generate a magnitude 10.5 earthquake is known to exist.


Daedalus27: It is self limiting as the higher magnitudes become impossible as there isn't a continuous fault fracture of sufficient length to generate such a quake (at least based upon the present understanding of earthquakes). I think something like a 12.0 would require a quake from Seattle, all the way down the Juan de Fuca plate joining the San Andreas and then running down the length of California to the Mexican border. I don't know that it is possible given the way the faults line up and whether they could propagate all the way down but If that would somehow happen, the West coast, Hawaii, coastal Alaska and even the east coast of Asia would be devastated.



okay, but why does length play such an important part? if it is all just a matter of coefficients of static and dynamic friction, and how much energy is bound up in the plates pushing against one another, couldn't equal magnitude quakes happen from 2 different sized faults?

i imagine it to be like rubberbands. the distance i can get it to fly isn't based on how long the band is, but more on its elasticity and how much energy i can get into the spring.

/completely unscientific comparison
//just asking questions
 
2014-04-02 06:21:27 PM  

Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.


This statement pretty much goes against everything we've learned about how tectonic plates can tranfer stress. So, no.
 
2014-04-02 06:21:53 PM  
 
2014-04-02 06:22:14 PM  

whistleridge: Interesting fact about the Richter scale - now more properly the Moment magnitude scale (MMS)- is that:  it has no upper limit.  It's logarithmic, which means it gets increasingly difficult to increase in magnitude, such that no earthquake over ~9.4 has ever been observed, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Or even unlikely. After all, scientific measurements of these things are only about 100 years old, and estimates of historical quakes are far from precise.

In theory, a 12.0 could obliterate Seattle tomorrow. It's kind of scary to think about.


STFU. If we get hit we're screwed, more areas worse than others. Mudslide a few weeks ago and Rainier has been quaking.
 
2014-04-02 06:23:50 PM  
more concerned about animals fleeing Yellowstone!
 
2014-04-02 06:25:26 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 06:25:29 PM  

Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.


Where were you last Friday when SoCal got theirs?
 
2014-04-02 06:26:13 PM  

divgradcurl: CanuckInCA: Important part,

The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the length of the fault on which it occurs -- the longer the fault, the larger the earthquake. The San Andreas Fault is only 800 miles long. To generate an earthquake of 10.5 magnitude would require the rupture of a fault that is many times the length of the San Andreas Fault. No fault long enough to generate a magnitude 10.5 earthquake is known to exist.

Daedalus27: It is self limiting as the higher magnitudes become impossible as there isn't a continuous fault fracture of sufficient length to generate such a quake (at least based upon the present understanding of earthquakes). I think something like a 12.0 would require a quake from Seattle, all the way down the Juan de Fuca plate joining the San Andreas and then running down the length of California to the Mexican border. I don't know that it is possible given the way the faults line up and whether they could propagate all the way down but If that would somehow happen, the West coast, Hawaii, coastal Alaska and even the east coast of Asia would be devastated.


okay, but why does length play such an important part? if it is all just a matter of coefficients of static and dynamic friction, and how much energy is bound up in the plates pushing against one another, couldn't equal magnitude quakes happen from 2 different sized faults?

i imagine it to be like rubberbands. the distance i can get it to fly isn't based on how long the band is, but more on its elasticity and how much energy i can get into the spring.

/completely unscientific comparison
//just asking questions


That's a good question that I would be interested in knowing the answer to myself.  I just linked the USGS FAQ only because I had read it last week.  I honestly don't know anything about earthquakes.
 
2014-04-02 06:29:18 PM  

Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.


God, I read that as 'Quakers', at least 3 times. Maybe I should get this fever checked out.
 
2014-04-02 06:29:30 PM  
Stop talking about this.

/Bellingham
 
2014-04-02 06:29:51 PM  

JoieD'Zen: whistleridge: Interesting fact about the Richter scale - now more properly the Moment magnitude scale (MMS)- is that:  it has no upper limit.  It's logarithmic, which means it gets increasingly difficult to increase in magnitude, such that no earthquake over ~9.4 has ever been observed, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Or even unlikely. After all, scientific measurements of these things are only about 100 years old, and estimates of historical quakes are far from precise.

In theory, a 12.0 could obliterate Seattle tomorrow. It's kind of scary to think about.

STFU. If we get hit we're screwed, more areas worse than others. Mudslide a few weeks ago and Rainier has been quaking.


Well they say Rainier is overdue...
 
2014-04-02 06:30:20 PM  

Stone Meadow: Walker: Quakes are moving up and down the rim. Chile, then Panama got hit with a 5.8, probably Mexico next (Oh wait, they got a 4.2 today), then a big one for Cali.

Hey, we had ours last month. It's the Cascade Subduction Zone's turn.

*Sploosh*

Coastal Oregon, Washington and the outer coast of Vancouver Island slip beneath the waves.


As long as it kills Port Angeles, WA while my folks aren't there I'm ok with that happening
 
2014-04-02 06:31:18 PM  

divgradcurl: CanuckInCA: Important part,

The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the length of the fault on which it occurs -- the longer the fault, the larger the earthquake. The San Andreas Fault is only 800 miles long. To generate an earthquake of 10.5 magnitude would require the rupture of a fault that is many times the length of the San Andreas Fault. No fault long enough to generate a magnitude 10.5 earthquake is known to exist.

Daedalus27: It is self limiting as the higher magnitudes become impossible as there isn't a continuous fault fracture of sufficient length to generate such a quake (at least based upon the present understanding of earthquakes). I think something like a 12.0 would require a quake from Seattle, all the way down the Juan de Fuca plate joining the San Andreas and then running down the length of California to the Mexican border. I don't know that it is possible given the way the faults line up and whether they could propagate all the way down but If that would somehow happen, the West coast, Hawaii, coastal Alaska and even the east coast of Asia would be devastated.


okay, but why does length play such an important part? if it is all just a matter of coefficients of static and dynamic friction, and how much energy is bound up in the plates pushing against one another, couldn't equal magnitude quakes happen from 2 different sized faults?

i imagine it to be like rubberbands. the distance i can get it to fly isn't based on how long the band is, but more on its elasticity and how much energy i can get into the spring.

/completely unscientific comparison
//just asking questions


I am not a seismologist so I can't be certain and this is based on what I have read over the years, but I believe it is the stored up energy and stress that is built up that is then released when it is fractured over a larger area.  Remember these faults are miles and miles deep and taking the stress billions and billions of tons of material that should be gradually moving, but is instead locked up.  When an earthquake allows this stress to suddenly release and moves all this this pent up energy along a long segment, this energy is translated into the shaking.  So the longer the segment that ruptures and releases the stress, the larger the earthquake that is possible.  Of course not all segments of a fault are locked up so the release all depends on what segments are storing this stress and which ones are moving freely.  The exact ability to store also depends on the type of fault.  Subduction zones (one plate going over another like off of Chile, or Japan or near Seattle) tend to have more potential for larger earthquakes as they lock more frequently.  The San Andreas fault is a strike-slip so the plates are moving beside each other that has less potential for the larger quakes.
 
2014-04-02 06:32:21 PM  

divgradcurl: CanuckInCA: Important part,

The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the length of the fault on which it occurs -- the longer the fault, the larger the earthquake. The San Andreas Fault is only 800 miles long. To generate an earthquake of 10.5 magnitude would require the rupture of a fault that is many times the length of the San Andreas Fault. No fault long enough to generate a magnitude 10.5 earthquake is known to exist.

Daedalus27: It is self limiting as the higher magnitudes become impossible as there isn't a continuous fault fracture of sufficient length to generate such a quake (at least based upon the present understanding of earthquakes). I think something like a 12.0 would require a quake from Seattle, all the way down the Juan de Fuca plate joining the San Andreas and then running down the length of California to the Mexican border. I don't know that it is possible given the way the faults line up and whether they could propagate all the way down but If that would somehow happen, the West coast, Hawaii, coastal Alaska and even the east coast of Asia would be devastated.


okay, but why does length play such an important part? if it is all just a matter of coefficients of static and dynamic friction, and how much energy is bound up in the plates pushing against one another, couldn't equal magnitude quakes happen from 2 different sized faults?

i imagine it to be like rubberbands. the distance i can get it to fly isn't based on how long the band is, but more on its elasticity and how much energy i can get into the spring.

/completely unscientific comparison
//just asking questions


I'm not a scientist or even someone who understands 1st grade science but I imagine is that it's because my dad is really strong and can hold the ground in place and beat up the earthquake.
 
2014-04-02 06:33:55 PM  

Rent Party: And Cascadia is ready to pop open soon.


Geologically "soon", which could be today or 300 years from now.
 
2014-04-02 06:35:45 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: As long as it kills Port Angeles, WA while my folks aren't there I'm ok with that happening


Sure is a purty town you got there. Be too bad if something happened to it...

aios-staging.agentimage.com
 
2014-04-02 06:37:44 PM  
Well, crap, I have an interview in Vancouver's earthquake soup zone tomorrow.
 
2014-04-02 06:37:55 PM  

Mikey1969: Scientists still don't have a way to predict when and where earthquakes will hit,

Lazy bastardsshould talk to the Chinese.

[www.easterncurio.com image 350x269]


That little contraption didn't predict earthquakes. It just told them in what general direction it occurred.
 
2014-04-02 06:38:23 PM  

Rent Party: Well, the good news is that a 9.0 would probably put Seattle into the dark ages for a week or so.   And Cascadia is ready to pop open soon.

/ My earthquake rider is paid and up to date.



I'm going to play a game which I call "which is more likely?"

It's simple.  I just ask you which is more likely:
1. In the event of an earthquake, the handful of underwriters that cover earthquake insurance will pay out tens of billions of dollars in claims
2. Those underwriters will declare bankruptcy and their boards of directors will get large bonuses.

Take all the time you need to figure out... which is more likely.
 
2014-04-02 06:40:23 PM  
I always liked the Wall Of Voodoo version
 
2014-04-02 06:41:48 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Rent Party: And Cascadia is ready to pop open soon.

Geologically "soon", which could be today or 300 years from now.


Some geologists place the odds at it cutting lose within 50 years at over 35%.   And the longer it takes to unzip, the worse it's going to be.

My house is insured.  You'll get that government FEMA loan, and buy yours twice.
 
2014-04-02 06:41:51 PM  

Daedalus27: whistleridge: Interesting fact about the Richter scale - now more properly the Moment magnitude scale (MMS)- is that:  it has no upper limit.  It's logarithmic, which means it gets increasingly difficult to increase in magnitude, such that no earthquake over ~9.4 has ever been observed, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Or even unlikely. After all, scientific measurements of these things are only about 100 years old, and estimates of historical quakes are far from precise.

In theory, a 12.0 could obliterate Seattle tomorrow. It's kind of scary to think about.

It is self limiting as the higher magnitudes become impossible as there isn't a continuous fault fracture of sufficient length to generate such a quake (at least based upon the present understanding of earthquakes). I think something like a 12.0 would require a quake from Seattle, all the way down the Juan de Fuca plate joining the San Andreas and then running down the length of California to the Mexican border. I don't know that it is possible given the way the faults line up and whether they could propagate all the way down but If that would somehow happen, the West coast, Hawaii, coastal Alaska and even the east coast of Asia would be devastated.


That it is not known to current science does not make it impossible. Merely improbable. In fact, it is likely going to happen a at SOME point in this planet's history.

Maybe next week.

Under YOUR house.

/ stop trying to derail my fun at the Left Coast's expense with science
// geez, man :p
 
2014-04-02 06:43:32 PM  
Word on the street says Two strong Planetary Alignments (Mars-Earth-Mercury on April 15-16) and (Mars-Earth-Uranus on April 21-23) feature prominently this month may coincide with significant earthquakes to be registered at high latitudes (Alaska, Norwegian Sea) between 7.0- 7.5 Magnitude on either April 15 or 16. The second time frame covvers April 21-23 where the forecast isolates the Indonesian region for a possible 7.2-7.7 Magnitude earthquake.
 
2014-04-02 06:46:28 PM  

divgradcurl: CanuckInCA: Important part,

The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the length of the fault on which it occurs -- the longer the fault, the larger the earthquake. The San Andreas Fault is only 800 miles long. To generate an earthquake of 10.5 magnitude would require the rupture of a fault that is many times the length of the San Andreas Fault. No fault long enough to generate a magnitude 10.5 earthquake is known to exist.

Daedalus27: It is self limiting as the higher magnitudes become impossible as there isn't a continuous fault fracture of sufficient length to generate such a quake (at least based upon the present understanding of earthquakes). I think something like a 12.0 would require a quake from Seattle, all the way down the Juan de Fuca plate joining the San Andreas and then running down the length of California to the Mexican border. I don't know that it is possible given the way the faults line up and whether they could propagate all the way down but If that would somehow happen, the West coast, Hawaii, coastal Alaska and even the east coast of Asia would be devastated.


okay, but why does length play such an important part? if it is all just a matter of coefficients of static and dynamic friction, and how much energy is bound up in the plates pushing against one another, couldn't equal magnitude quakes happen from 2 different sized faults?

i imagine it to be like rubberbands. the distance i can get it to fly isn't based on how long the band is, but more on its elasticity and how much energy i can get into the spring.

/completely unscientific comparison
//just asking questions


Earth and stone are nowhere near as elastic as, well, elastic.  There is only so much stress the rock can take before it gives.  Once you (okay, the planet) apply more force than that, the rock will fail, and you will get an earthquake.  If the earthquake's power is that force times the length of the fault, and the force is (relatively) low, then length will overwhelmingly determine the total power of the earthquake.  A rubber band is not a good metaphor; a loop of sewing thread is.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report