
California fault capable of producing a magnitude 8 earthquake has begun moving - spking
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/unprecedented-movement-detected-on-california-earthquake-fault-capable-of-8-0-temblor-1.603516/quake-1.603517
======
raydev
> But new satellite radar images now show that the fault has started to move,
> causing a bulging of land that can be viewed from space.

Wow, it'd be sure be great for the article mentioning this to, you know,
either host the pics or provide a link.

~~~
ryanmercer
I imagine it's something most people would look at and go "I have no idea what
I'm looking at".

For example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaging_radar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaging_radar)

If you showed me the images in the Wiki entry with no context, I would assume
i was looking at lichen growing on a rock like in this image
[https://cumuseum-
archive.colorado.edu/Research/Objects/Image...](https://cumuseum-
archive.colorado.edu/Research/Objects/Images/sep04_lichen.jpg)

------
mattlutze
Relatively relevant, there's a review of the current challenges in detecting,
correlating and acting on seismic events:

[http://gfzpublic.gfz-
potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2405891:...](http://gfzpublic.gfz-
potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2405891:5/component/escidoc:2408890/2405891.pdf)

------
Hamuko
Having listened to a short podcast about the predicted big earthquake that
would hit California ("the Big One"), I'm not sure how people in California
manage to get a good night's sleep.

~~~
Gibbon1
I keep coming back to an observation that the places where civilization tends
to exist are geologically and climatologically 'interesting'. If it's not one
thing it's another.

~~~
quotemstr
There are plenty of places without any particular natural risks, e.g., New
York City and London, both of which standard and dull four-seasons temperate
climates and dead geology.

~~~
dehrmann
NYC earthquake risk is on-par with the Bay Area because while the magnitude of
the quakes would be lower, the bedrocks transmits the energy better, the
buildings are under-engineered for earthquakes, and it has a higher population
density.

~~~
quotemstr
NYC is not close to any major geological activity. The east coast, unlike the
west coast, has been quiet for, what, 60 million years? The Appalachian
mountains are worn-down nubs. The closest seismic zones are, what, the
Caribbean and the New Madrid area of Missouri, IIRC.

~~~
Decade
Depending on how you define “major” (I just saw a Twitter status arguing that
San Francisco does not get “ _truly_ big” earthquakes because it’s a transform
boundary and not a subduction zone), New York has a bunch of faults and does
get significant geological activity.
[https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1183984933733158913](https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1183984933733158913)
[https://nypost.com/2017/09/09/new-york-city-is-overdue-
for-a...](https://nypost.com/2017/09/09/new-york-city-is-overdue-for-a-major-
earthquake/)

------
mehrdadn
Question: What's the fastest earthquake notification source publicly
available? I ask because USGS seems to have a 5-10 minute delay, whereas I'm
hoping for less (ideally a few seconds).

~~~
dheera
I was also hoping to create an early warning system and at least wake me out
of bed a few seconds before an earthquake hits so I'm at least on the way to
sheltering myself from falling objects.

The response I got from USGS was this:

> You can read our FAQ on that at [https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-fast-does-
> earthquake-informati...](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-fast-does-earthquake-
> information-get-posted-web-site-get-sent-out-earthquake-notification).

> You may also be interested in ShakeAlert - see
> [https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/earlywarning/](https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/earlywarning/).

So in short, no, they don't really have it yet. I wonder though if we
(hackers) could create a realtime system for the bay area since USGS has been
on it for years without results. About 20-50 sensors scattered in homes around
the bay would probably be enough for an early warning system. Warnings can be
delivered via a mobile app, or some kind of realtime API that anyone can use
for their own purposes (e.g. stopping machinery, sounding building alarms,
...).

~~~
Excel_Wizard
Write a bot that detects earthquake-related tweets, a la xkcd.

~~~
alikim
I've actually done this and get notifications usually 30 seconds post quake
just like xkcd suggested.

~~~
dheera
I thought of that but 30 seconds is too long for an early warning system, the
waves travel pretty fast.

~~~
alikim
Depending on where the epicenter is, it may take 1-2 minutes for the S waves
(which are the slower, damaging ones) to travel to the major population
center. Up to 30s of warning for an earthquake early warning system is enough
for people to take cover and for cities to shut off things like water/gas
lines. That being said my system is definitely not ready for that, and twitter
can be seen as one source of information used to augment other early detection
systems.

------
smsm42
Money quote from the article: “We don’t know what it means.”

~~~
raxxorrax
I remember a Seismologist that said that moving rocks in a region with fault
lines are a good sign. At least better than not moving rocks that are
constantly building pressure. Of course "we don't know" is probably the most
accurate prediction.

~~~
emcq
The small energy released by small movements doesn't add up to a large
earthquake. For example, magnitude 8 earthquake is a billion times more energy
than a magnitude 3 earthquake. This was the sobering perspective of a
geophysicist when I asked if small earthquakes are a good thing in California
to help relieve potential energy.

------
unlinked_dll
I wonder if this is posted because of the California Shakeout drill today.

>Whether the destabilization will result in a major quake soon cannot be
predicted. In September, the U.S. Geological Survey said the most likely
scenario is that the Ridgecrest quakes probably won’t trigger a larger
earthquake. Nevertheless, the USGS said that the July quakes have raised the
chances of an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 or more on the nearby Garlock, Owens
Valley, Blackwater and Panamint Valley faults over the next year.

So keep your china cabinets tidy, keep your earthquake kit stocked, but don't
fret and carry on like normal? Seems a tad alarmist.

~~~
FooHentai
It's not possible to please people with these kinds of notifications. On a
long time scale, that fault IS gonna rip and if civilization exists around it
at the point it goes, a LOT of people are going to die.

But, our ability to predict quakes on a short time span (read: human lifetime)
is abysmal. The best we can say is eh, maybe. There are no consistent,
confirmed precursors.

So, what can you do? Every warning will be accused of being alarmist if it
doesn't eventuate, and every failed prediction (note that you don't see these
from reputable professionals working in the field) mocked. If a warning is
ever actually borne out by a significant seismic event, expect a TON of
criticism that someone knew but didn't provide sufficient urgency in their
warning.

Putting all the stuff about warnings aside for a moment, let's examine at
individual's justification for and capacity to make preparations for such an
event. At one extreme you have preppers, and at the other end there's folk
that do nothing. Both approaches seem predominantly to hinge on pure opinion
on the immediacy of the threat. If you immerse yourself in various materials
on the topic to be found online, you'll probably adopt a prepper mindset. If
you simply never bother to do that and continue about your day, you'll likely
sit on the 'do nothing' extreme. There really isn't a 'right' here without a
crystal ball, which everyone seeks from seismologists and get frustrated when
they can't provide any tangible insights.

In summary: Mankind's ability to risk assess and rationally respond to long-
interval threats of high severity is very, very poor.

~~~
rjf72
I'd distinguish between prepping and doomsday types. Prepping can be as simple
as having some basic supplies and nonperishable goods such that you're not
going to die if, for any reason, you need to survive independently for some
period of time. It's not like some lifestyle or even dependent upon an
assumption that you'll even ever need these things. So it's a relatively low
cost decision to be able to be at least somewhat prepared for an eventuality
that, though extremely improbable, would have disproportionately negative
consequences if you were of the 'do nothing' extreme on the other end.

To put it mathematically, if I said there was a 1 in a million chance of you
losing a billion dollars sometime in your life, and you agreed with me, it'd
certainly be logical, if you could, to provide insurance against that
eventuality for $1. In fact it'd still be mathematically sound to spend $1000.
But this is for an event that you are literally 99.9999% sure will not happen.
I think the big difference is in seeing reality as a neverending stream of
probabilities as opposed to seeing reality as a neverending stream of
certainties. The probabilistic mindset can lead you to conclusions and
decisions that look peculiar to a deterministic mindset. By contrast doomsday
types are those who have a deterministic mindset and have decided that the
world (as we know it) is going to end and thus make that a part of their
persona and worldview. Granted, they could also be of a probabilistic mindset
with a different weighting but, at least in my experience, that's not usually
the case.

~~~
Gustomaximus
I distinguish between prepping vs doomsday as;

1) Acknowledging there is a chance of a significant event vs. I know what is
coming.

2) It takes a minor part of your life vs. significant proportion/resource.

Personally I keep a couple months food stored. I dont keep freeze dried
barrels of meals etc, just buy bulk on stuff we use that's 1) on special and
2) stores; like jars of pasta sauce, peanut butter, toothpaste etc so really
it also saves money as a portion of my grocery is always half price rather
than that weeks on special usage.

The way I look at it is pretty much every 2nd generation experiences a
significant catastrophic at some time. If I can keep things covered for a
couple months it covers most non-extreme scenarios, where as if the end of
civilisation did come I figure there would be so many variables there not much
you can really do unless you devote you life to this and sacrifice you
lifestyle for a likely non-existent outcome.

Keeping some extra food/supplies is insurance of a kind. And surprised more
people dont while so many have things like house content insurance.

For me I dont have content insurance on my house while most people do. Many
people would think I'm strange for having a couple months food, but the way I
look at it is, if all my house goods disappeared it would suck but I can sort
it out fairly easily over 3-12 months. If something happened that broke supply
lines, while significantly less likely than the house being being burgled/fire
etc, the consequences are so much greater. I prefer to be covered for a much
less likely event that would have significant impact on me, than a more likely
(though still low) event that will have little impact on me in the over
arching story of my life. PLus there something nice about the planning
organising mental exercise of it

~~~
ahje
Precisely! While the risk of most disasters is rather low for most people,
there is a considerably larger risk that _something_ will happen at some
point. It's only reasonable to be able to survive on one's own if society is
disrupted for a few weeks or so.

There's a long way to go from that to bunkering down in the wilderness and
withdrawing from society.

------
obilgic
There was just an earthquake in LA

------
seaish
If you picked up a paintbrush, you could say "human capable of painting the
Mona Lisa has started painting". The article doesn't really give any
information about what makes this fault special, besides not having seen it
move before. Is the original paper available?

~~~
env123
"A major California fault capable of producing a magnitude 8 earthquake has
begun moving for the first time on record, a result of this year’s Ridgecrest
earthquake sequence destabilizing nearby faults"

Is that not information enough?

~~~
jchw
Not really, because the article goes on with this quote:

>“We don’t know what it means.”

Then...

>Whether the destabilization will result in a major quake soon cannot be
predicted. In September, the U.S. Geological Survey said the most likely
scenario is that the Ridgecrest quakes probably won’t trigger a larger
earthquake.

And of course...

>Also, a creeping fault triggered by a nearby quake doesn’t necessarily mean a
big quake is coming. The southernmost tip of the San Andreas fault has
traditionally crept in response to distant quakes, including the magnitude 8.2
quake off the coast of southern Mexico in 2017, nearly 2,000 miles away. “But
that doesn’t mean the San Andreas went off,” said USGS research geologist Kate
Scharer, who was not part of the study.

They do their best to not link to the actual study for which the alarmist
headline seems to be derived. It is probably this:

[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/346](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6463/346)

What I'm really wondering is whether the '8.0' figure is present in this paper
or not. Because otherwise, where did they pull that number?

------
pts_
>The creeping illustrates how the Ridgecrest quakes that began on the Fourth
of July have destabilized this remote desert region of California between the
state’s greatest mountain range, the Sierra Nevada, and its lowest point,
Death Valley.

A cruel joke one could say.

------
blondin
man... some of these titles are getting harder and harder to understand

~~~
MickerNews
Temblor, his arms wide.

~~~
mamurphy
When the walls fell.

~~~
mcagl
Sokath, his eyes uncovered!

