[HN Gopher] Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region reve... ___________________________________________________________________ Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality Author : bookofjoe Score : 216 points Date : 2023-10-11 01:20 UTC (14 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.science.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org) | vidanay wrote: | Bizarre...I just watched this video this evening. | | "Great Earthquakes of the Pacific Northwest" | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ7Qc3bsxjI | swatcoder wrote: | On the contrary, that video probably surfaced for you precisely | because this study is making the rounds. More people than usual | are probably searching for and watching stuff about Seattle | seismology. | | As it turns out, the algorithm does not work in such mysterious | ways. | bawolff wrote: | Also there was a small earthquake in the region 2 days ago | that probably has some people jumpy. | vidanay wrote: | I've been watching a bunch of Nick Zentner's lectures for the | last few weeks and I live nowhere near the PNW, so my case I | doubt it was algo based. I have no doubt that in general you | are right and the topic is "trending" (for whatever that | means these days). | codetrotter wrote: | > the topic is "trending" | | In which case they might suggest it to you as well, even if | your personal interests are not closely related to whatever | happens to be trending? | vidanay wrote: | It wasn't suggested to me. I am working my way through | his lectures and I explicitly went to the channel and | selected the video. | pests wrote: | The next logical question is what set you off to work | your way through his lectures? Was whatever caused that, | inspired by this? | | I don't think it matters or anything but it is an | interesting question into virality and where ideas come | from. | vidanay wrote: | Well, that's a long a twisty route... | | I was originally watching videos from a guy who goes | hiking further north in BC. From there, I searched for | similar videos in WA. From there I saw a couple of videos | about the modern history (1800's to today) and settlement | of Seattle and the sound. From there I saw one of Nick | Z's geology videos which I really liked and have been | watching them since. | pests wrote: | Thanks for the Nick Z rec. Start the video linked | upthread and already loving it. I recently went on a | earth formation / geology binge on YT over the last few | weeks and this is right up my interests. | codetrotter wrote: | My bad. I misunderstood what you meant. | gpspake wrote: | One day I got to work early before anyone else was there and | I was daydreaming pondering earthquake scenarios and what I | would do if one happened (I was on an upper floor). | | It wasn't until hours later when I checked the news and heard | conversations around the office that I realized I had felt an | earthquake and just didn't realize it. It had never even | occurred to me | | I think living in a city I'm just accustomed to a car driving | by in a parking garage and various other rumblings so I never | considered that's what it was. Later in retrospect, I | recognized that being on the 7th floor of a concrete | building, nowhere near a parking garage or construction, that | was the only explanation. | | The most memorable part of the experience was realizing that | my unconscious brain recognized it long before I processed it | consciously. | eigenform wrote: | Nick Zentner has a lot more content on YouTube too (and it's | all very lovely!), see https://www.youtube.com/@GeologyNick | vidanay wrote: | Yes, I've watched 10-15 of them so far. | cossatot wrote: | I wasn't involved in this study, but I wrote the study that | estimated the magnitude of this earthquake[0]. In case anyone is | interested, usually the magnitudes of 'paleoearthquakes' | (historic/prehistoric earthquakes discovered by finding evidence | of old ground deformation) are estimated by relating the measured | offset of the earth's surface or a rock/dirt layer across the | fault line to the earthquake magnitude through empirical 'scaling | relationships'; larger offsets are of course indicative of larger | earthquakes. These are simply functions relating a measurable | attribute of the earthquake to its magnitude. In the study I did, | we combined the measurements of the offsets of a number of | paleoearthquakes with estimates of the map length of the fault | lines involved and used length-magnitude scaling relations to | further refine the final magnitudes. There are some corrections | for sampling bias that are included in there and it's all nice | and Bayesian if anyone wants to nerd out on the stats. | | When we did the study, it was speculated that two of the | paleoearthquakes, one on the Seattle Fault and one on another | fault on the Olympic Peninsula, could have actually occurred in a | single event, but there wasn't much evidence to support this; we | consider the magnitude of it on a paragraph at the top of page | 1149 but not in the rest of the paper. The recent study (TFA) | makes it highly likely that they were part of the same | earthquake, but they could be separate earthquakes spaced a few | minutes to a few months in time (think of the 7.8 and 7.7 | earthquakes in Turkiye this spring, separated by a few hours). | | A bit of context about the earthquakes in the Seattle region as | well as Cascadia and other areas: | | - The earthquakes in the Puget Lowlands and vicinity are | relatively infrequent; there are about 15 known earthquakes over | the past 17,000 years, and many of them are relatively small (M | 6-7). However, they are spatiotemporally clustered[1]: There was | a big cluster about 900 AD, and things have been mostly quiescent | since then. It can be also shown from the geologic data that at | the measurement sites ('paleoseismic trenches'), there haven't | been any earthquakes since 17,000 years ago (when the Puget ice | sheet retreated) on many of the faults, although the Seattle | fault has had a number of earthquakes before. | | - The big Cascadia subduction zone events are more frequent | (perhaps every 500 years?) and larger, but they may not _all_ be | M 9 events, unlike what has been discussed in the famous New | Yorker article. That article is based largely on the research of | Chris Goldfinger, a scientist at Oregon State University, whose | views are credible but on the high side of credible, in the eyes | of many other scientists in the region. Many of the earthquakes | suggested by the geologic data could be smaller earthquakes (M | 7.5-8.5) which won 't cause as much ground shaking over such a | wide region. | | - Earthquakes cause seismic waves at the fault surface, and these | attenuate as they travel through the earth towards the surface. | The initial magnitude of the waves as the earthquake occurs can | be different for subduction zone earthquakes than for shallow | earthquakes in the crust, and the attenuation is different for | these as well. But importantly, not only are subduction zone | earthquakes far off shore, but much of the seismic energy is | released deeper in the earth as well, which means more | attenuation of ground shaking by the time the waves make it to | Seattle. | | - A Cascadia earthquake will cause widespread but perhaps | moderate damage across the PNW with perhaps, but a strong Seattle | fault earthquake will absolutely destroy central Seattle, | particularly Pioneer Square and Sodo. The fault comes ashore at | Alki Point, for reference. However areas farther away (Edmonds, | Tacoma, etc.) will not see nearly as much damage. | | - SF and LA both have higher seismic hazard than Seattle[2], | considering _all_ earthquake sources, the frequency and | magnitudes of earthquakes from the sources, and the seismic | ground motions emanating from all of these earthquakes to a site | within any of the cities, according to the most recent USGS | national seismic hazard model. (See Figure 12 for hazard curves | for major US cities). | | [0]: | https://rocksandwater.net/pdfs/styron_sherrod_bssa_puget_eq_... | | [1]: | https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/10/4/... | | [2]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/8755293019878199 | 23B1 wrote: | Thank you for this fascinating comment. | | Out of curiosity, do you have any insight as to the Portland, | OR area? We always seem to get glossed over in discussions | about the PNW and the West Coast in general. | cossatot wrote: | Portland is probably similarly affected by the subduction | zone, but the inland fault system is not as active as in | Seattle. Nonetheless, there is a fault that is underneath the | Portland Hills that could do some damage to the city. | | The seismic _risk_ faced by a city or an individual is really | the product of the hazard (formally, the probability of a | certain level of ground shaking) and the response of the | building stock or other infrastructure. Fortunately, both | cities have a large amount of wood-framed housing, which | performs quite well in earthquakes (as do modern apartment | buildings). However there are a lot of old masonry buildings | used for schools, offices, etc. If these aren 't properly | reinforced, they can be deadly, not only because they are | fragile but because they are heavy when they do collapse. But | if you live in and work in a modern structure or an old | wooden one, you'll probably make it through alright, as long | as you have some food and water at home. | | The big concern in both cities is actually liquefaction, | where some water-saturated soils lose their strength during | an earthquake. In both cities, there is some amount of | housing stock built on liquefiable soils, but there is a huge | amount of commercial and industrial building stock built out | on fill dirt on the respective waterfronts (which is where | the old masonry buildings are as well). One of the scariests | scenarios is the Critical Energy Infrastructure in NW | Portland, where massive amounts of oil are in the huge tanks | built on fill into the Willamette, liquefying and then | spilling into the Willamette/Columbia: | https://www.multco.us/sustainability/cei-hub-seismic-risk- | an... | 23B1 wrote: | Fascinating. Thank you. | [deleted] | adrianpike wrote: | Thanks for jumping in with your experience - every time the New | Yorker article makes the rounds, I do a little light digging to | try and find some sources the author based it on. Reading | through some of Goldfinger's publications will help unlock a | bit more, thank you! | cossatot wrote: | This is the most recent review paper of Cascadian seismicity: | https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev- | earth-.... I would start here instead of Goldfinger's work, | as there is a lot of other science to consider. | soultrees wrote: | How do you go about collecting the data for these studies? Is | it core sampling? And if so how many cores would you need to | get a good reading? | cossatot wrote: | Typically the analysis is done by digging trenches across the | fault and dating pieces of charcoal found in the sediment | with radiocarbon. This study is rare but not unique in using | cored trees, or slices of stumps if possible, and dating the | event with tree ring dating (dendrochronology), which is | vastly superior when it's possible (i.e. when it is | demonstrable that an earthquake kills trees). In both cases | you want as much as you can get--ideally 5-10 ages at a | minimum I think? | blincoln wrote: | In the late 90s, I took a geology course at Seattle Central, | and the teacher told us the reason Alki Point has such a nice | flat area all along the beach is because that area used to be | the tide flats, but during an ancient earthquake, that entire | chunk of West Seattle rose something like 10m in less than a | minute and retained that elevation from then on. Is that still | the current understanding? | dmitrysergeyev wrote: | There's a nice government's map that demonstrates potential | impact of the various quake scenarios in Seattle: | https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/2acb05d732134331bc0... | | An interesting observation is that Cascadia Subduction Zone is | potentially less devastating than Seattle Fault despite being | capable of a 100x bigger magnitude (9+ vs 7.2) thanks to a longer | distance from the city | [deleted] | doublerebel wrote: | Everyone in the Seattle region is thinking about earthquakes | since we just felt the 4.3 quake on Sunday! | | https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/small-... | DoreenMichele wrote: | I can't readily find a source, but there was another one some | weeks back of around 4.0. | | I can't decide if these are good news making a big quake less | likely or foreshadowing of a big quake coming. | mnky9800n wrote: | There is little evidence that earthquakes come as precursors | to larger earthquakes. Most papers reporting such things have | selection bias since they are written after the big | earthquake occurred. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | It's more the other way around. A large earthquake is often | followed by a swarm of aftershocks, some of which can cause | significant damage. | | The media failed to report that the recent quake in Morocco | was followed by tens of smaller quakes over the next few | weeks, all in a small-ish area that had been quake-free. | (In recent memory, at least.) | sparrowInHand wrote: | A fault is a series of hooks, nooking into the oppossing | plate. One of them giving way, in a small event, gives off | its energy partially to the surroundings (the quake) - the | rest- stays as additional pressure on another | rockformation. | | There is a lot of research on people not taking possible | disasters serious: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias | | Its understandable, but in the end also just noise for | those who do and want to discuss mitigiation strategies or | statistics. The urge to conjur up security by repeating | doubt mighte be huge, but like all prayer, should be kept | to oneself. | abnercoimbre wrote: | Definitely felt it for a couple seconds lying still. If you | were driving or moving about you might've missed it. | nvy wrote: | Felt it up here in Victoria, too. | JALTU wrote: | Aftershock of Taylor Swift concert? | kogok89 wrote: | Didn't feel a thing (2) in North Seattle. | AISnakeOil wrote: | Didn't feel a thing. | psunavy03 wrote: | Didn't feel a thing. | cc101 wrote: | I can't seem to load this article, but I would like to offer | this: I have long thought that the major effect of natural | disasters is not the disaster itself, but the social unrest cause | by the government not being able to cope. A super quake would be | bad enough, but social unrest would make it much worse. | e40 wrote: | After the 89 quake in the Bay Area the people in Oakland came | together and were incredibly helpful to each other. The freeway | that collapsed was in a pretty bad part of town, yet there was | no social unrest, only unity. | hackernewds wrote: | particularly in SF social unrest is viable | imbusy111 wrote: | Cascadia Subduction Zone[1] is why I never considered living in | Seattle/Portland once I found out about it. Funny, cause I live | in the SF Bay Area, where the earthquakes are frequent, but they | can never reach the magnitude of what's possible by the Cascadia | Subduction Zone. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone | jandrewrogers wrote: | The fault is at least 150 miles from Seattle proper, the city | will not receive the full brunt of the earthquake. Tsunamis are | strongly mitigated by the geography of Puget Sound -- the | biggest tsunami threat is actually the Seattle fault. | | By contrast, the San Andreas fault literally runs through the | middle of the Bay Area. | btilly wrote: | Let's see. | | The Cascadia quake is 100x as big. I'm at 1/3 the distance | from the San Andreas fault. Guess who gets the larger | earthquake? | | Add to that the fact that I grew up in Victoria. All of | Vancouver Island is a subduction zone during a Cascadia | earthquake. Sadly, that means that a good chunk of what I | knew growing up winds up under water. Seattle may fare | better, but my home town does not. | djmips wrote: | Can you back that up with some references? Very curious, | I've never heard any claims that Victoria will end up under | water in a big Cascadia earthquake. | interloxia wrote: | An Ask an Earth-Scientist answer by Dr. Gerard Fryerm | suggests a few meters is possible. | | >"Will part of Vancouver Island "break off and sink," or | "split in two at Alberni Inlet?" No. In a big earthquake | the seafloor offshore from Vancouver Island will be | uplifted and the area along the coast will sink, but at | worst that sinking will only be a few meters. If you live | very close to the beach and close to sea level then there | is a possibility that your house will be flooded, but no | big piece of the island is going to break off and | disappear. It is possible that there will be submarine | landslides along the steepest slopes offshore, but each | of those is likely only be small in extent. | | http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/vancouver.html | btilly wrote: | It doesn't take a lot of meters to pose a big problem for | Victoria, BC. Look at a topographical map: https://en- | ca.topographic-map.com/map-1926m2/Victoria/?cente... | | That said, https://www.esquimalt.ca/sites/default/files/g | reater_victori... is built on more up to date information | than I had. And suggests that subsidence + tsunami is | only 4 meters. Which doesn't pose a serious threat. (If | they are wrong and get a 10 meter combination, of course, | that would be a far, far worse story.) | seabrookmx wrote: | It's not like the island will just drop into the earth. | | Unless you were referring the tsunami risk, which is my big | fear as a fellow Victorian. | btilly wrote: | The island does subside in these earthquakes. | | Reading up now, it looks like it is 1-2 meters, mostly on | the west coast of the island. But my memory of the early | research when I still lived there in the early 1990s was | that it was about a 3 meter drop. Between how low much of | Victoria is, widespread poorly build older houses, and | lots of housing built on unstable landfill in places like | James Bay, my belief was that it was going to be pretty | devastating to a lot of parts that I knew. | | However recent articles like | https://www.mdpi.com/2624-795X/4/3/13 suggest a much | milder risk than I had thought. | lightedman wrote: | "The fault is at least 150 miles from Seattle proper," | | Looking at my geological units map of Washington, Seattle is | surrounded by a lot of faults, much like parts of Southern | California. Some of those much, MUCH closer than 150 miles, | and devastating if they go. I can see one going from Port | Angeles, crossing the 101, and going into Port Gamble. It | likely continues to run either directly under Seattle or just | south of it, in fact that might be the continuation of that | reverse thrust fault dead south of Seattle which is shown in | the map for the story article. If that one goes, Seattle's | not having a good time. | 01100011 wrote: | As I understand it, the entire region is on a flat(well, | tilted), planar fault because of the way the crust | subducts. So you can have earthquakes anywhere in the | western PNW from that. | | But remember, the bay area is also home to many, many | faults, and we don't even know the locations of them all. | For instance, the next big bay area quake is likely to come | from the Hayward Fault in the E. Bay. | jandrewrogers wrote: | The Seattle fault is a significantly bigger threat to | Seattle than the Cascadia Subduction Zone and it doesn't | get nearly as much attention. Parts of the city's | shorelines could subside up to 10-20 feet, and the tsunamis | are substantial. | ksenzee wrote: | On the other hand, Seattle is one of the best places in the | world to ride out climate change, which is 100% happening, and | happening already. It's all a numbers game. | [deleted] | DoreenMichele wrote: | I wish we were less focused on moving to where we can survive | this mess and more focused on solving it, personally. | fransje26 wrote: | Yes, but think about the poor shareholders. | oceanplexian wrote: | People were saying that about Vermont, then last summer they | had massive flooding that put cities under several feet of | water. | | I knew a lot of, frankly over-confident people who moved to | New England because the news told them it was good for | Climate Change. I think the "experts" know a lot less about | Climate Change impacts to weather than they want to admit. | ghaff wrote: | You do get flooding and at least residual hurricanes in New | England. e.g. [1] Depends where your house is of course. | Some properties are probably pretty well-situated; others | much less so. | | Just about a month ago the city next door to me in MA got a | freak foot of rain which caused some serious flooding. I | had to pump water out of my basement for the first time in | years. | | Very few places are immune to at least local natural | disasters of various types and some of those, like the | Vegas area have their own long-term issues. | | [1] https://www.weather.gov/media/btv/events/1927Flood.pdf | Axsuul wrote: | And SF isn't? | notyourwork wrote: | No, it isn't. | mvdtnz wrote: | I'm no expert on the region but aren't people in California | forever whining about heat waves and water shortages? | rconti wrote: | Man, I moved from Seattle to the Bay Area and in the | intervening 20 years it sure seems like summers in the | PNW have gotten hotter than they are down here. | ti30 wrote: | Longtime Bay Area resident here - I haven't looked at the | data, but it seems like this area seems to be getting | colder over the past ten years. If so, it's an | illustration that we're facing not global warming but | climate change. | dheera wrote: | No, you're looking at just a few years of data on a | certain region. | | When the global average temperature rises some places | will get cooler from time to time, there are multiple | underdamped systems at play. | lazide wrote: | Well, most things really. | akkartik wrote: | California != SF. | iancmceachern wrote: | Water shortages are largely in the central valley and | Southern California. | | Sf gets its water from Hetch Hetche, clean hydro power | too. | | SF is a very different place in a lot of ways from the | rest of California, and the US in general. | DoreenMichele wrote: | Fresno County has a history of actually increasing its | groundwater levels intentionally at times. Anyone | interested in water issues could stand to take a look at | what they do. | callalex wrote: | Yes but that aqueduct is hundreds of miles long and goes | through the Central Valley. Once the water wars begin, | that situation could change rapidly. | iancmceachern wrote: | They'd need to change some pretty old laws... | | https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/hetch- | hetchy/h.... | elliotec wrote: | Do you have a source for this? What is "best" in this | context? | adrianpike wrote: | Freshwater availability is a big factor that swings in the | PNW's favor. | jandrewrogers wrote: | I don't have sources readily available but I have looked at | several climate change projection models for the US in the | past to answer similar questions. There are a handful of | locales in the US where the local climate doesn't change | much under most models and parameters. They behave almost | like fixed points in a mathematical sense. Some of these | fixed points are not anywhere you'd likely want to live, so | that might not help much. | | However, the Seattle region is one, and it already has a | pleasant temperate climate. IIRC, the main expected change | is that it will get more sun in the winter months, which | would address the main criticism of Seattle's weather. | | Of course, these models could be wildly off, but to the | extent we have such models Seattle is in an enviable | position. While there are some regions that look like they | will change for the better e.g. some arid regions will get | substantially more rain, it is hard to predict the true | impact of that change on those regions -- that outcome | might come with significant trade offs. | [deleted] | meowkit wrote: | This is not something with a "source" or a real academic | answer. There are too many variables and long tail events. | | Survival in some of the worst case climate change scenarios | involves moving away from the equator where crop failure | and extreme heat will occur. | | It involves having good access to water, and ideally | farmland as wars over resources and refugee migration | accelerate. | | Martial law of some kind would become a normalized thing in | population centers as basic resources and commodities | become more expensive. Seattle has a large military | presence. | | Seattle is positioned geographical well for these things. | Being farther north alone is a huge benefit. The mountains | of the west due to their proximity to the Pacific enable | much more temperate climates than other port cities. | [deleted] | elliotec wrote: | This all sounds reasonable but also anecdote. I'm curious | if there are any analyses, studies, or anything other | than PNWers' HN comments backing claims like these. | 23B1 wrote: | I doubt it. It's an exercise in predicting the future, | with so many variables, over such a long timeline, that | any model will just unwind. | dataflow wrote: | > Funny, cause I live in the SF Bay Area, where the earthquakes | are frequent, but they can never reach the magnitude of what's | possible by the Cascadia Subduction Zone. | | What makes you think a big one ("The Big One") isn't going to | hit the Bay Area? | xattt wrote: | I'm wondering how far the big one will be felt. As egocentric | as my question is, will I feel it on the East coast? | ksenzee wrote: | It won't be _that_ big. They'll feel it as far as Idaho | maybe. | finite_depth wrote: | No, but you would feel it well inland throughout the | Mountain West. See this simulated USGS map for a 9.0 quake: | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/9.0_Cas | c... - for scale, the light blues are about the edge of | where you'd clearly go "oh, yep, that's an earthquake", | although you might notice such a large one at lower ground | acceleration because the shaking would be quite prolonged | (~minutes, rather than the ~10-20 seconds of a typical | minor quake). | asveikau wrote: | I don't think they're saying that. | | But from what I recall reading, the big one that hits Seattle | will exceed the big one that hits the Bay. Seattle's big ones | are higher magnitude but less frequent. Iirc it's also likely | the 9.0 that hits Seattle won't be in most of our lifetimes. | The last really big one was before Europeans arrived. | rapind wrote: | Rainier will erupt first and the mudslide will wipe out all | those houses built on the last mudslide. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Rainier erupting would devastate slot of small | communities between it and Tacoma. Like Helen's blowing | it's glacial too (liquifying into a muddy huge river) but | worse since the area around is more populated. | rapind wrote: | Yes and a lot of these suburbs are built upon the | mudslides from previous (recent) eruptions (few million | people). Last I heard it was a 1 in 7 chance in my | lifetime. It's incredibly stupid and dangerous. Mudslides | can travel up to 50 mph or more, and it doesn't even need | to be an eruption that kicks it off. | dkasper wrote: | From what I've read the faults in the Bay Area can't really | generate above an 8.0, whereas the cascadia zone can produce | much larger events (remember a 9.0 is 10x the intensity of | 8.0). It has to do with the size and type of the faults. | carbocation wrote: | Yes: a 7.8 is thought to be the max in the Bay Area, as far | as I understand. E.g., | https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/only-one-bay- | are... | zamfi wrote: | > remember a 9.0 is 10x the intensity of 8.0 | | 10x the _ground movement amplitude_ -- 32x the total energy | release, though! | Stratoscope wrote: | My mom was a Red Cross nurse who worked in the relief effort | after the 1964 Good Friday earthquake and tsunami that | devastated Anchorage and areas as far south as Crescent City, | California. | | It was magnitude 9.2, the second largest in recorded history. | | The photos she brought back were quite something. I may still | have them somewhere, but in the meantime there are plenty | online. LIFE.com has a remarkable collection: | | https://www.life.com/history/the-great-alaska-earthquake-of-... | | https://ready.alaska.gov/_64Quake/History | | https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/alaska1964/ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Alaska_earthquake | | From Wikipedia: | | > _As a result of the earthquake, 131 people are believed to | have died: Nine died as a result of the earthquake itself and | another 122 died from the subsequent tsunamis all over the | world. Five died from the tsunami in Oregon, and 12 died from | the tsunami in Crescent City, California._ | shostack wrote: | Those numbers, while sad, are surprisingly low compared to | other causes of death. | Retric wrote: | Anchorage was 78 miles from the earthquake and still saw | mass building collapses. The death toll was low due to the | low population in the area. 128,026 in 1970 presumably less | in 1964. | interloxia wrote: | About 290,000 in 2022. | | https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/anchoragemun | ici... | seanmcdirmid wrote: | My mom was a schoolgirl in anchorage during the earthquake. | We have a picture of my grandma and her trailer being 20 feet | down from the rest of the ground. Haven't digitized it yet. | ianburrell wrote: | The Cascadia quake will be about same damage to Seattle and | Portland as Bay Area quake. It could be up to magnitude 9 but | the fault is 60 mi away from the cities. The big difference is | that it will affect the whole area. And that PNW is way behind | in infrastructure. | diogenes4 wrote: | According to https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/bay- | area-earthquak... vs | https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really- | big... you're looking at two orders of magnitude difference | in terms of the estimate of people affected. I'm not sure | what led to the difference but that's striking. | adrianpike wrote: | That New Yorker article goes viral every few years - it's a | well written piece and spins a great yarn, but there's some | significant hyperbole and it's sources don't quite back up | the claims. Yes, a 9.x will be devastating. No, everything | west of i-5 will not be toast. | rnk wrote: | Good thing I'm 10 miles east from that road of doom, I'm | sure I'll be safe ;-). | JieJie wrote: | You gotta worry about lahars. :) | karaterobot wrote: | I'm 10 blocks east, should be fine too. Even if the | earthquake somehow gets a couple blocks past I-5 (can't | see how that could happen) I'd still have 7-8 blocks as a | safety cushion. | diogenes4 wrote: | > it's sources don't quite back up the claims. | | I'll admit that FEMA isn't exactly cited in a way that's | possible to corroborate, but presumably they're | estimating a worst-case scenario and not a median- or | average-case scenario. That might explain some of the | large divorce in figures. | adrianpike wrote: | I'd love to find any actual FEMA publications that back | up some of the numbers and claims - so far to the best I | can tell is it's mostly from interviews with the regional | director, which, while valuable, isn't quite at the level | of citation I'd like. If anyone's got a PDF I'd love to | retract all my critiques though. :) | ianburrell wrote: | The news articles exaggerate things either for effect or | didn't realize quakes diminish with distance. The shaking | for mag 9 at Portland is similar to mag 7 nearby. One | difference is that quake will go on for minutes making | liquefaction worse. | | There will be lots of damage in Portland. There are lots of | unreinforced masonry that will collapse and kill occupants. | Most of the bridges, big and small won't survive cutting | off from outside. Infrastructure will be destroyed and | utilities will be out of months. All of those could be | upgraded which is why Bay Area would be in better shape. | | Also, this is talking about Portland and Seattle. Most of | the destruction will be on the coast which is closer to the | fault. The tsunami will cause lots of damage, destroying | most of the towns and killi;g everyone that doesn't | evacuate to high ground. | | The 2011 Japan quake is the best comparison but | Portland/Seattle aren't prepared like Tokyo, and there are | minimal tsunami defenses. | mhb wrote: | https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big... | tony_cannistra wrote: | Some friends I know who work in earthquakes maintain that this | article caused a measurable increase in the amount of funding | available for earthquake research. | Exuma wrote: | This article actually is loaded with inaccuracies. I once | called the local earthquake office where I live, where the | local scientists and such work. | | They said this article is the bane of their existence because | of people calling into their office with false beliefs that | have just propagated into fear over time. | | I dont even think the sentence got out of my mouth "so about | that article I saw...", I was calling to see if my area was in | danger of a tsunami, and she gave relieved my fears greatly. | | It will be bad, but also there's a lot more nuance to it. | molsongolden wrote: | Is there a better resource? | nnf wrote: | I read this article about once a year, and it terrifies me | every time. | isoprophlex wrote: | _To date these Puget Sound samples with a second, independent | method, we analyzed individual tree-ring sequences for a jump in | annual radiocarbon concentrations associated with an extreme | solar proton event (30, 31). This rapid, large magnitude (~10%0) | radiocarbon excursion between the years 774 and 775 CE is | recorded globally in tree cellulose and can therefore be used as | an exact geochronological anchor point (30, 32, 33)_ | | They found more exact dates because a massive solar storm in the | past changed carbon isotopes worldwide, which is reflected in | tree rings that grew during the storm. That's incredibly cool. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | Can we do the reverse process, find solar proton events from | dendrochronology data? | MiguelVieira wrote: | Yes | | https://www.reuters.com/science/huge-ancient-solar-storm- | rev... | jumploops wrote: | 500 error on site, alternative link: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37756412/ | varenc wrote: | Same for me, super odd. Seems related to my browser state. It | works fine in an incognito window. | [deleted] | jumploops wrote: | Strange, works in one Chrome profile but not the other... | tony_cannistra wrote: | A particularly crazy thing I learned from some friends who I know | who work in this field is that they use underwater hydraulic | chainsaws (!) to sample some of these trees. | | https://www.stanleyinfrastructure.com/products/underwater-ch... | | The field work in general seems very wet for this kind of | research. (my partner did lots of it for her graduate work) | mannykannot wrote: | Harvesting timber from trees submerged by the creation of | reservoirs is a viable business, I believe, on account of | rising prices, particularly for high-quality lumber that is | becoming scarce. | kalupa wrote: | I suspect there's still plenty of much, much easier to access | trees. The macro-economic effects of the wars, and covid, | often causing gasoline prices increases (which is used a lot | in forestry) that are still adding pressure to almost all | commodity prices, including lumber | monknomo wrote: | It's not "access to trees" so much as "access to large, old | growth trees". The old ones with tight growth rings, large | widths and long straight trunks are actually kinda rare | these days. The farmed stuff is not the same, compare the | growth ring per-inch | mateo- wrote: | that 3rd pic could be a black metal album cover | johnfonesca wrote: | Dimmu Borgir presents their new album "Undying Chainsaw"... | ithkuil wrote: | That's what Alice in chains saw | 83 wrote: | "Deep Cuts" | p1mrx wrote: | https://i.imgur.com/6UFnqxT.png | hackernewds wrote: | very well done | martin_a wrote: | I liked their first album better, but okay. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-10-11 16:00 UTC)