Predictions for 2005/6

Latest Scientific SoCal Earthquake Predictions

I was poking around with my seismic model over the weekend, and entering in the new surface temperature data that I have collected from web weather resources. So I thought it was about time to resurrect this thread and start working on predictions for the "back side" solar heating rate event coming to SoCal as summer turns to fall.

What is most interesting thus far has been the relative mildness of our SoCal summer, especially noticeable here at the beach. In a "normal" year, the heavy marine layer known as "June gloom" is completely dissolved by July (hence its name) and pretty much every morning the SoCal area awakens to a cloudless sky, which precipitates very high heating rates and high overall daytime temps. This trend normally continues well through August and it is not until a couple weeks after Labor Day that we feel some heat relief.

But this year we've had quite a few "monsoonal" days in SoCal where it has remained overcast, and that has kept the temps quite pleasant. Depending on how the weather patterns change (or remain the same) in the next few weeks will tell me one of two things: (a) We have already passed our maximum rate of change of tectonic plate heating, or (b) The maximum rate of heating has simply been pushed off to late Aug or early Sep.

So what's it all mean RIGHT NOW? So far, I'm saying no major event, and that is based on the assumption that we've passed the max heating rate for the year. But if the weather here returns to its normal "scorching August leading to scorching Labor Day" then I will re-post an updated set of predictions when I get another set of surface temp data.

Until then... beware the rolling sensation of the p-wave! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
Fall 2005 Prediction Window

Time for an update...

Well, since my last posting we have definitely entered our typical late summer SoCal hot spell. That means we are approaching the backside of the thermal stress curve for this year. I've been updating my model, and since we've just had some 4+ events out near the Salton Sea south of Palm Springs, I think it is about time to make my fall predictions...

The Prediction Time Window
As best I can tell, the window for a large quake will open on or around Sunday SEP 4th and will close sometime around Halloween (Monday 31 OCT). Remember the World Series quake in San Francisco?

The Prediction Coverage Region
I admit that this is tougher than nailing down the time window, especially since my model is based on thermal heating rates caused by the sun's migration. However, I will again limit the region to Central and Southern California. From approximately the Napa Valley and Sacramento areas in the central part of the state down to the border with Mexico. Of course, east-west wise I expect this to be quite close to, if not directly on, the San Andreas fault.

The Prediction Magnitude
This is certainly the toughest part. It would be easy to say "anything larger than a 5.0" as Darby has pointed out. But according to my model, we've got a lot of stress in the central valley, mostly due to the fact that we had some events north and south of this in the spring/summer window that released stress in those areas. However, we have not had any significant shakers in the Parkfield/Coalinga area. That means there is existing stress that has built up in that area, and it will therefore be subject to the biggest stress release events as the thermal gradients take over as we move into the autumn. Based on all of this, I am calling for a magnitude of no less than 6.3 during the above time window and within the coverage region. To put my own, personal, gut instinct into this prediction, I still believe we are due for something greater than 7.0 this year. So that ought to sufficiently bound the quake I am expecting... however, I am not limiting it to 7.0, for as we know we are due for a much larger quake than this along the San Andreas.

So there we go... only TIME will prove me & my model right or wrong.

RMT
 
Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

Today is SEP 23rd. Note the recent earthquake activity at the following seismic web page:

http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/

And here is a page that shows the location and size of the largest, most recent quake along the fault:

http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Quakes/ci14186612.html

A 4.7 magnitude yesterday (THU, SEP 22nd) just south of Bakersfield.

Just as my model had shown and I had predicted... the fault line is starting to "wake up" due to stresses induced by the magnitudes of thermal rates of change in the earth's crust.

RMT
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

Just as my model has predicted... the fault line is starting to "wake up" due to stresses induced by the magnitudes of thermal rates of change in the earth's crust.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that your model "predicted" anything. In fact I do not believe scientific theory says a model is supposed to make predictions, usually models are used to test theories and hypothesis and what not, and the results of the model, taken with scientific rigor are then analyzed and then YOU can make a prediction based on the results.

care to argue about it?

I think a more accurate statement would be "Just as my model had shown and I had predicted". but you love to always be right and you can never be wrong so it must be just me and everyone else who are morons when it comes to your vast superiority and intellect. u know I prefer creedo over you lately. and if you do care to argue about it I don't and won't bother. besides, what would be the point, your always right!
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

I think a more accurate statement would be "Just as my model had shown and I had predicted".
Click to expand...
Actually, that is a more precise way to state it. Thanks Ren, I stand corrected.

but you love to always be right and you can never be wrong so it must be just me and everyone else who are morons
Click to expand...
Do you care to knock that chip off your shoulder and be civil with me?

Just because I tend to post on things that I know about, and refrain from babbling BS about things I don't know about, does not mean I always think I am right. A wise man only takes a stance on things he knows are true and remains silent on other subjects.
RMT
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

RMT,

its no chip, and you saying you stand corrected is monumental in my book. Here's my problem, you go on and on and on about the things you do know, which is great. With very little respect for others opinions on the matter, and instead of being a teacher and showing them why your way may be correct. you are more of a parent or principal and scolding them for not knowing.

perhaps you should take the chip and use it to teach others your vast wealth of knowledge and if someone does not understand something, you need to be able to put it into laymens terms so they can.

Its never been about what you do or don't know, but how you come off to those who don't know what YOU know. Besides, who is to say the science you are stating as fact today may not be replaced with a more accurate science in a hundred years. You seem to be more about making your point than teaching your knowledge, I would like to see more lessons from RMT as opposed to more statements attesting to your extreme knowledge in science. but, perhaps, I am wrong and this is what you have been doing and it was misinterpreted by myself and others.
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

and you saying you stand corrected is monumental in my book.
Click to expand...
I understand, but maybe its because you are allowing emotion to cause your memory to be selective. I assure you I have admitted to being wrong (when I am wrong) quite a few times in the past on this TT board. But as I say, I am usually quite cautious about my facts and science before I post, and do not post if I know I am unsure.

With very little respect for others opinions on the matter, and instead of being a teacher and showing them why your way may be correct. you are more of a parent or principal and scolding them for not knowing.
Click to expand...
I think you are mostly referring to my spats with Hercules. And yes I have purposefully taken a tone with him... have you ever noticed how often HE avoids addressing issues, questions, or even admitting he was wrong? You should maybe take count... I have!

As for being a teacher, which you know I am, I take a similar hard-line approach with my students. It is because I want those students to learn critical, scientific thinking. Being soft of them just does not work in developing the appropriate attitude towards "the craft". There is no room for political correctness in math, science, and engineering. In fact, if you were to go ask my A and B students from the past (and maybe even some of the C students who finally made it to graduation) they will likely tell you they appreciated the fact that I was NOT easy on them, as it helped force them to do what it takes to be successful in their careers. One of my students is now a NASA astronaut! Of course, if you ask the D and F students, they will say I was a terrible teacher. I really don't care much about them, because truth be told, they just did NOT have "the right stuff" to make it in this career. Not everyone has what it takes to be a scientist or engineer, even if that is what they think they want to do.

Besides, who is to say the science you are stating as fact today may not be replaced with a more accurate science in a hundred years.
Click to expand...
And if you have followed and understood my theory of Massive SpaceTime, you would know that this is exactly what I am trying to do with this theory. The difference is, history has NEVER shown that we advance by a wholesale dumping of past theories that were correct within their domain (i.e. Newton and F=ma). Rather, we BUILD on that past knowledge by further refinements. The thought that we are just going to "usurp" Newton and Einstein is simply ludicrous, because their theories predict reality within certain governing assumptions. Rather, we will develop theories that enhance the older theories... and the older theories will simply become subsets of the newer, more encompassing theory of science. That's the way it has always been, except for those theories (a la pre-Copernican) which were CLEARLY wrong and shown to be such by the data.

Hence, I am quite firm in dismissing folks (often called crackpots) who claim that "everything we have ever been taught is wrong" or folks who claim that something with VERY high improbability is actually a viable theory. That's just the way I am. If it rubs you the wrong way, I am sorry... but I feel it does serve a purpose to expose crackpots.

RMT
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

Of course, if you ask the D and F students, they will say I was a terrible teacher. I really don't care much about them, because truth be told, they just did NOT have "the right stuff" to make it in this career.
Click to expand...

I am glad you do not care about your students because you assume they do not have the right stuff. I seem to remember Einstein doing badly in school and his teachers saying he didn't have "the right stuff". This only goes to prove the fruitless point that we all have preconceptions and we are all seeking the truth. The truth is, yes, maybe a lot of your students don't have the right stuff, but if you are automatically assuming and then lumping them into this group of people you "don't care much about..." then maybe we can make some assumptions about you too RMT.
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

RMT Said: Of course, if you ask the D and F students, they will say I was a terrible teacher. I really don't care much about them, because truth be told, they just did NOT have "the right stuff" to make it in this career.
Click to expand...
Ren said: I am glad you do not care about your students because you assume they do not have the right stuff.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is another one of those cases, like earlier in this thread, where a re-wording is in order to more appropriately express what I meant. Try this on for size, Ren:

"I really don't care that much about their opinion of me, because... "

Now, to address something else you said... I do not assume they did not have the right stuff... they showed it to me via testing. And by that I mean the right stuff to earn a degree. If you want to use the Einstein story, so be it... but he DID get his degree, now didn't he?

then maybe we can make some assumptions about you too RMT.
Click to expand...
Go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. If your point would be to assume things or try to hurt my feelings, you'll have a tough go of it. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

RMT
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

Hey Rainman:

Read this..I just came across this article today which I think challenges your statement

Forbes: America's Richest 400

Now, to address something else you said... I do not assume they did not have the right stuff... they showed it to me via testing. And by that I mean the right stuff to earn a degree. If you want to use the Einstein story, so be it... but he DID get his degree, now didn't he?
Click to expand...

It's pretty funny that 4 of the top 5 were all college dropouts..makes you think twice about how important school, is least higher education. This is IF you have a good plan in what you want to do. It could be luck about being in the right place at the right time but luck only goes so far, then one must use intelligence. I'm not knocking college because I just graduated but I just think , for example, that taking a 200 question test at the end of a semester that is based on the entire semester of work gets pretty absurd. Especially when this test is almost worth half of your grade and you have an hour and a half to do it (at least in my own personal experience).
So in conclusion, I just think that some people are "book smart" while others such as Bill Gates..etc, are "hands on smart." And the hands on smart people shouldn't be penalized or looked down on just because of a silly test. But, that's the way our society works and I don't think that will ever change. And don't get me wrong, some people do not study and don't care but the people that do and still do below average on those tests do care and you can't say that they don't possess the right stuff just because of a test. If you were to challenge them on a hands on test, such as going outside at night and naming some stars and planets (just using this as an example to get my point across), you would see that they would succeed better in that area than naming them on a black and white piece of paper.
Of course you are going to disagree with me since you are a teacher but I just wanted you to hear it from a students p-o-v. So the lesson in this is that don't look down on those students that try and don't succeed. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

Basically all I was trying to say there is that you shouldn't judge a students character by the taking of a test, because there is much more to life than that.
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

Hi Roo,

Basically all I was trying to say there is that you shouldn't judge a students character by the taking of a test, because there is much more to life than that.
Click to expand...
I wasn't, and I said nothing about judging their character. Your stats are fine, but they do not speak to the context of my comments.

Let me state it another way: I teach aerospace engineering. And I can guarantee you that NO college dropout has ever designed an aircraft or spacecraft that has made it to flight status. I am judging engineering ability, and there are VERY few (if any) who have such ability without being able to complete a university education in engineering. Same is true for practicing medicine.

This does not contradict your facts. And indeed, no one said you cannot be successful without a college degree. But there are some professions which you simply cannot work in without it... as Creedo has discovered. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

I don't think a dropout has built an aerospace craft....BUT, some of that schooling is bypassing the good old-fashioned apprenticeship experience. the reason a drop out has never built a space craft is because they were never exposed to enough "rote" conditioning mixed with mental applications. if a drop out could spend time in the space program "training" to build crafts, and learning all the things that is being taught at school...from a person in a hands on environment, I could almost promise that they would be excellent engineers. but of course...who wants to spend the money on that much training of an employee....that is why school is required to get the job....AND you would have to be very wealthy to do any hands on training independantly...because we all know, many many dollars go into that sort of engineering....it's like the chicken and the egg...the knowledge for these areas had to come before the books.....
so SOMEONE could have possibly been able to build one...without being taught....because...who taught the teachers? and yes I know it's compound technology and no single person came up with it all over night or anything...many great minds long deceased had just as much of a hand in the first space craft as the "project engineers"...hmmmmm that might even say the people who build them today are just doing things based on ideas that were already there...but then you could also say every idea is already there....there just isn't always words for them.
I'll just sum up this babble with....just because no one has never built one...without a higher education....doesn't mean it goes beyond capabilities....I agree that a teacher is nessessary...but I don't agree that it has to be at a school(if anyone even said they had to be...I'll admit I skipped over some of this thread heh)....it's just much more probable due to convience of resources

so I agree with both of you...and RMT you are a professor...I've been wondering what you did, you seem well educated...and your mindset seems well enough to almost assume you are a good teacher
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

the only other thing I can add is....
didn't howard hughes build planes..???
he probably had engineers with degrees do it for him
but they do give him credit for designing them....
and he had no education in the area
and orval and wilber??
 
Re: Note the San Andreas Waking Up again...

Howard Hughes was certainly a creative "idea man" who exhibited ideas in more domains than just aircraft. But he did not have the skills to do the engineering to make his idea a reality, and he readily admitted this fact. There were many smart engineers doing Hughes' work and creating his magic, and it was because Hughes had the money to pay them to do it. Both Hughes and his team are to be equally commended!

Wilbur and Orville were THE TWO ORIGINAL aerospace engineers. Certainly the historical record shows they did not go to formal university to get a degree, yet the way they did their research (they developed the techniques of wind tunnel testing) was engineering-in-practice. They exhibited "the right technical stuff" in how they approached their work. After Wilbur passed away, Orville was one of the founding members of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA). This took the Wright's experimental work and advanced it with the NACA series of airfoils and their characterization. Of course NACA lead to NASA...

I just like Wilbur and Orville because they were Ohio boys, like me. I can identify with them, in a couple different ways. I know it sounds as crazy as some of the things Creedo says, and I accept that this is so. I'm a crazy dude in certain ways... but aren't we all? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

RMT
 
Flurry of 4.0+ along San Andreas

My favorite tracking page: http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/

I've been meaning to bump this thread and add to it, but we've had a flurry of 4.0+ sized earthquakes along the CA coast and CA inland along the San Andreas over the past week. From the site above, here are a few stats:

Pacific Ocean south of San Clemente Island
4.2 2005/10/19 01:51:26 32.497N 118.145W 12.0 73 km (46 mi) SE of San Clemente Is., CA (NW tip)
4.9 2005/10/16 14:11:34 32.421N 118.172W 6.0 79 km (49 mi) SSE of San Clemente Is., CA (NW tip)

San Gorgonio Mountains near Big Bear
4.4 2005/10/18 00:31:03 34.012N 116.775W 18.5 11 km ( 7 mi) SSE of Mt. San Gorgonio, CA
4.1 2005/10/17 21:08:41 34.014N 116.775W 16.7 11 km ( 7 mi) SSE of Mt. San Gorgonio, CA

Between Fort Bragg and Santa Rosa
4.0 2005/10/18 17:05:12 38.837N 122.882W 2.6 8 km ( 5 mi) NW of The Geysers, CA


Of course, I admit they are not in the magnitude range I have been predicting (yet), but I've still got another week and a half in my prediction window.
Looking at the activity over the past week, things have really been bubbling, shaking, and stirring.

Science works, boys and girls! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
Re: Flurry of 4.0+ along San Andreas

Active again today......
Click to expand...
Yeah... lots of smaller quakes covering large areas. That actually could be a good sign for avoiding one large quake. Lots of smaller energy releases rather than one big one. I would certainly not mind being proven wrong in my prediction!


RMT
 
Re: Flurry of 4.0+ along San Andreas

Is it possible that land-shift that caused the Tsunami is somehow linked to all the weirdness going on lately? If a tectonic plate shifted even a tiny bit there'd be a HUGE release of energy (like a Tsunami). But what if there's some kind of "tectonic resonation" that's somehow linked?

For example, an asteroid hit the moon a thousand years ago and we can prove it because the moon still wobbles as it should. The entire moon wobbles, scary. So could a tectonic plate wobble too?

I ask because it could answer a lot of big questions. I also ask because if this is the case, then it's possible California could fracture any day... the other end of a tecnonic plate? Wobbling? I see you connected a lot of earthquake data but could it all be connected to that?
 
Back
Top