ArtRosen Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 http://earthquake.us...ci11001205.html Earthquake Details This event has been reviewed by a seismologist. Magnitude 4.2 Date-Time Thursday, September 01, 2011 at 20:47:07 UTC Thursday, September 01, 2011 at 01:47:07 PM at epicenter Location 34.356°N, 118.455°W Depth 0.1 km (~0.1 mile) (poorly constrained) Region GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA Distances 7 km (4 miles) ESE (110°) from Newhall, CA 8 km (5 miles) N (349°) from Pacoima, CA 8 km (5 miles) N (349°) from San Fernando, CA 8 km (5 miles) SE (145°) from Santa Clarita, CA 39 km (24 miles) NNW (330°) from Los Angeles Civic Center, CA Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 0.7 km (0.4 miles) Parameters Nph=140, Dmin=6 km, Rmss=0.58 sec, Gp= 22°, M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=1 Source California Integrated Seismic Net: USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR Event ID ci11001205 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The biggest concern here is whether this is a foreshock..... 4.2 is just no biggie there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Twitter feeds talking about this quake, very close to Northridge, CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 This thread will get about 1% of the activity that the Virginia thread did. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I was at the airport at the time, picking up my business partner, and we didn't notice it. It was mentioned briefly on the local news on the radio-- just in passing. Like someone above said, it's of interest primarily because there's always a chance (5%) that it's a foreshock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I was at the airport at the time, picking up my business partner, and we didn't notice it. It was mentioned briefly on the local news on the radio-- just in passing. Like someone above said, it's of interest primarily because there's always a chance (5%) that it's a foreshock. Camera near the bed in case of a night time big one? Does the camera have light? Blair Witch style night vision quake YouTubes might have potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bostonseminole Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 wondering how common are foreshocks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Camera near the bed in case of a night time big one? Does the camera have light? Blair Witch style night vision quake YouTubes might have potential. You ulterior motives for asking for josh to have a camera in bed are noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmyB Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Camera near the bed in case of a night time big one? Does the camera have light? Blair Witch style night vision quake YouTubes might have potential. You are a strange bird, Ed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 wondering how common are foreshocks? The problem is identifying them. They are moderately common as a number of biggees such as 1906 and the recent bell ringer in Japan had foreshocks while other biggees have not had any. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslotted Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I was at the airport at the time, picking up my business partner, and we didn't notice it. It was mentioned briefly on the local news on the radio-- just in passing. Like someone above said, it's of interest primarily because there's always a chance (5%) that it's a foreshock. I have been idly curious about how often foreshocks occur since we were discussing it from 39 floors up after the VA quake. How *good* is that 5% figure? That is, is it based on your own observations or a statistic you picked up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I have been idly curious about how often foreshocks occur since we were discussing it from 39 floors up after the VA quake. How *good* is that 5% figure? That is, is it based on your own observations or a statistic you picked up? It's what the USGS representative says on TV every time we have a good rattle here. I don't know if that figure is specific to Southern California or what-- but that is what the experts always say here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 It's like a canned response almost from USGS every time there's a quake.....like trixie said....it's generic.....I am from the SF Bay area.....every time there was a quake they would always remind us of the chance of THE BIG ONE.....loma prieta in 89 was big but not really considered the big one.....they always say something like 30% chance of 8.0 or larger over the next 30 years yet in my 32 years there it never happened but the chance never changed over the years....so it's like they make it up or something....doesn't seem to be based on anything....I know they do but the public doesn't get that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 It's like a canned response almost from USGS every time there's a quake.....like trixie said....it's generic.....I am from the SF Bay area.....every time there was a quake they would always remind us of the chance of THE BIG ONE.....loma prieta in 89 was big but not really considered the big one.....they always say something like 30% chance of 8.0 or larger over the next 30 years yet in my 32 years there it never happened but the chance never changed over the years....so it's like they make it up or something....doesn't seem to be based on anything....I know they do but the public doesn't get that You're confusing what the USGS says with media hype. When we have a quake, the USGS spokesperson very dryly says there's a 5% chance of a larger event-- meaning if it was a 5.1, there's a 5% chance we see a 5.2 or greater in the next 48 hr. I assume this figure is based on statistics. They're qualified experts and scientists-- not to mention our leading authority on seismic activity-- so I don't know why you would say they just make things up. The USGS doesn't talk about the "Big One" and nonsense like that. I have a feeling what you just posted is "made up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 You're confusing what the USGS says with media hype. When we have a quake, the USGS spokesperson very dryly says there's a 5% chance of a larger event-- meaning if it was a 5.1, there's a 5% chance we see a 5.2 or greater in the next 48 hr. I assume this figure is based on statistics. They're qualified experts and scientists-- not to mention our leading authority on seismic activity-- so I don't know why you would say they just make things up. The USGS doesn't talk about the "Big One" and nonsense like that. I have a feeling what you just posted is "made up". Yes I would agree...I mean Katia was on the Today show this morning ...I also shouldn't have blurted those numbers and imply the USGS doesn't do good science....they do a good job....the truth was I was too lazy to go find what trixie posted which I found interesting.....I know we still know very little about earthquakes and predictions of same....it really is tough to put numbers to it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 actually in 1989 it was 66% of a 7.0 or higher between 1990-2020. in 1999, after intensive study the time period was revised to 2000-2030. there are numerous USGS reports easily accessible its website. here's am excerpt from a relevant document: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of99-517/#_Toc464419639 It's interesting that the chance increased only 3% in ten years......my parents would be toast if those faults went in central and eastern contra costa.....though I believe they are moderate in size.....the Hayward fault is much scarier.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 4.2.. Lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 4.2.. Lolz What's lolz about it? Except for a brief-- like 10-second mention-- in the afternoon news (after the real stories), no one in the city even mentioned it today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 What's lolz about it? Except for a brief-- like 10-second mention-- in the afternoon news (after the real stories), no one in the city even mentioned it today. Good.. It's not even worth mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Good.. It's not even worth mention. Agreed. So why was a thread made about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Agreed. So why was a thread made about it? That I do not know good sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I suppose it's worthy of a mention because 1) it happened very close to the city and 2) the region is prone to big events-- 6.5 and above-- and any kind of 4+ tremor suggests a heightened risk of something greater in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Agreed. So why was a thread made about it? Both a full moon and new moon are due... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I suppose it's worthy of a mention because 1) it happened very close to the city and 2) the region is prone to big events-- 6.5 and above-- and any kind of 4+ tremor suggests a heightened risk of something greater in the near future. Or ArtRosen is a sensationalist poster and thinks a 4.2 in a highly active seismic zone means something. I don't think it suggests anything really. Maybe we need an earthquake and volcano forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Interestingly, the epicenter (34.356N 118.455W) is very close to Sylmar, the site of L.A.'s second-worst quake in the last century-- the 6.6 San Fernando Earthquake of 1971 (34.416N 118.370W). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isopycnic Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Camera near the bed in case of a night time big one? Does the camera have light? Blair Witch style night vision quake YouTubes might have potential. creepEd wants some "action shots" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Or ArtRosen is a sensationalist poster and thinks a 4.2 in a highly active seismic zone means something. I don't think it suggests anything really. Maybe we need an earthquake and volcano forum. Stuff over 4.0 we do monitor for clues, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Stuff over 4.0 we do monitor for clues, actually. 'we' as in you and your geologist buddies? good luck.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isopycnic Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 'we' as in you and your geologist buddies? good luck.. Him and his buddy ed, actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 'we' as in you and your geologist buddies? good luck.. "We" as in the 9 million people living in metro L.A. I suppose a weather blogger in DC knows better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.