Great Quake & Tsunami Likely In Near Future For Pacific Northwest

[jimmy olsen]

And are we prepared? Absolutely not.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/08/10603138-quake-catastrophe-like-japans-could-hit-pacific-northwest-new-data-show

Quake catastrophe like Japan's could hit Pacific Northwest, new data show

By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com

A massive earthquake like the one that unleashed a giant tsunami and killed nearly 16,000 people in Japan a year ago not only could happen here in the U.S., but probably will — and relatively soon in terms of seismological history.

The Tohoku earthquake was the most closely monitored in history, yielding an unprecedented breadth of data, geophysicists and seismologists say. And for residents of the Pacific Northwest, the new data should be worrisome.

"It's just like Japan, only a mirror image," said Gerard Fryer, a geophysicist at the University of Hawaii and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

The disaster in Japan occurred because of stress from the Pacific tectonic plate sliding below Japan, according to new research discussed last month at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, British Columbia.

The lead researcher, John Anderson, a geophysicist at the University of Nevada-Reno, said the plates locked together, slowly pushing Japan westward.
Ben Gutierrez and Lisa Kubota of NBC station KHNL in Honolulu contributed to this report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.

The plates released catastrophically on March 11, 2011, creating a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami waves that topped 100 feet, said Anderson, who spent most of the past year in Japan as a visiting research professor in Tokyo.

While most Americans probably think the San Andreas fault running through California poses the greatest threat of unleashing a killer mega-quake, data from the Japanese quake indicate that the distinction actually belongs to the Cascadia fault line, which runs through southern Canada, Washington and Oregon to Northern California, Anderson said at the conference.

USGS earthquake information by state

Biggest threat zones

The biggest threats of a U.S. mega-quake (generally defined as one of magnitude 7.0 or greater) lie along three fault lines:

The Cascadia subduction zone stretches from northern Vancouver Island through Seattle and Portland, Ore., to Northern California, separating the Juan de Fuca and North America plates. Giant quakes are believed to occur there every 300 to 600 years; the last was Jan. 26, 1700. Recent research suggests the region could have a 37 percent chance of a magnitude-8.2 quake or greater in the next 50 years.

The San Andreas transform fault runs the length of California, separating the Pacific and North American plates. The last mega-quake was in 1906 near San Francisco, but large earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or above are relatively common in historical terms, having occurred as recently as September 2004 near Parkfield.

The New Madrid seismic zone stretches southwest from New Madrid, Mo. (pronounced MAD-rid), and is most active in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee, where it regularly produces small- to medium-intensity temblors. Three magnitude-8.0 quakes are believed to have occurred in the region from December 1811 to February 1812; had Memphis, Tenn., existed at the time, it likely would have been destroyed. Since then, the largest earthquake was a magnitude-6.6 quake in October 1895 near Charleston, Mo.

Like Fryer, he called the Pacific Northwest trench a "mirror image" of the Japanese trench — except potentially even more dangerous.

"In this mirror image, one can see that if the same earthquake occurred in Cascadia, the fault would rupture to a significant distance inland, since the Cascadia trench sits much closer to the coastline than the trench off the coast of Japan," Anderson said.

While some probability models predict that a Cascadia earthquake wouldn't rupture so far under the land, "if it does, the data from the Tohoku earthquake predict stronger ground motions along our West Coast than those seen in Japan," he said.

In layman's terms, what's happening is that the region "is being deformed because the plates are locked together, and the shoreline is sinking and the rest of the thing is being bent," Fryer said in an interview with NBC station KHNL of Honolulu.

Fryer said the big question is not whether a Japan-like quake will happen, but when.

"Where are we here? Are we close or are we not close?" he asked. "I think the suspicion is that it could be sooner rather than later."

Anderson's research supports that conclusion.

Experts generally agree that last great Cascadia earthquake happened on Jan. 26, 1700. It generated tsunami waves that indicated that its magnitude was also about 9.0.

"Earthquakes of this size in the past may have recurred with intervals of as small as about 300 years," Anderson said at the AAAS conference last month. "So it would not be a scientific surprise if such an event were to occur in the near future. If you live in the Pacific Northwest, look at the videos of Tohoku as a reminder to be prepared."

The warnings come as the White House is proposing a 2013 budget that would cut $4.6 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's tsunami programs. Much of that would come from the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, which funds evacuation maps, training and education efforts — important services given how deeply the Japanese quake and tsunami transformed the science of seismology.

"The Japan earthquake told us that a lot of what we understand about how earthquakes work is wrong," Fryer said. "Do we now have to go back and look at all of our evacuation maps and make sure that they're right? That's a question that's still unanswered, and that question would be answered with tsunami hazard mitigation program funds."

[Viking]

Using the words "likely" and "near future" when discussing seismology just proves the author doesn't know shit.

I'm still waiting for the Canaries Supervolcano landslide causing the tsunami which wipes out the US east coast.

[jimmy olsen]

Using the words "likely" and "near future" when discussing seismology just proves the author doesn't know shit.

I'm still waiting for the Canaries Supervolcano landslide causing the tsunami which wipes out the US east coast.

I used those words, not the author and I of course meant likely and near future in geological terms.

[sbr]

Using the words "likely" and "near future" when discussing seismology just proves the author doesn't know shit.

I'm still waiting for the Canaries Supervolcano landslide causing the tsunami which wipes out the US east coast.

I used those words, not the author and I of course meant likely and near future in geological terms.

Using the words "likely" and "near future" when discussing seismology just proves the author doesn't know shit.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Harry Turtledove just released a book called Supervolcano.  I read a bit of it in a Barnes and Noble.  It was unpleasant.  The characters deserved death, but unfortunately for the reader, I don't think any of them will get it.

[MadImmortalMan]

I have a 12000 foot flood wall protecting me. Bring it.

[Tonitrus]

It would suck if you lived on the coast, but I believe the major population centers, Portland/Seattle (at least, I am pretty sure an oceanic tsunami wouldn't roll up Puget Sound or the Columbia River all that effectively), are too far away from the actual ocean to be hurt too much by a tsunami.

[sbr]

It would suck if you lived on the coast, but I believe the major population centers, Portland/Seattle (at least, I am pretty sure an oceanic tsunami wouldn't roll up Puget Sound or the Columbia River all that effectively), are too far away from the actual ocean to be hurt too much by a tsunami.

Both cities are theoretically safe from the tsunami, Portland definitely is, there is a mountain range between the coast and the city.  I'm not sure about Seattle but they say that Portland will be pretty fucked up by the major earthquake they are expecting.

[jimmy olsen]

It would suck if you lived on the coast, but I believe the major population centers, Portland/Seattle (at least, I am pretty sure an oceanic tsunami wouldn't roll up Puget Sound or the Columbia River all that effectively), are too far away from the actual ocean to be hurt too much by a tsunami.

Both cities are theoretically safe from the tsunami, Portland definitely is, there is a mountain range between the coast and the city.  I'm not sure about Seattle but they say that Portland will be pretty fucked up by the major earthquake they are expecting.

It may be safe at it's current elevation, but isn't the next quake expected to drop a significant portion of the city below sea level?

[Tonitrus]

The portion of Seattle build on land/silt that they shoveled from the hills into the Elliot Bay will probably get fucked up pretty good by liquefaction.

[sbr]

It would suck if you lived on the coast, but I believe the major population centers, Portland/Seattle (at least, I am pretty sure an oceanic tsunami wouldn't roll up Puget Sound or the Columbia River all that effectively), are too far away from the actual ocean to be hurt too much by a tsunami.

Both cities are theoretically safe from the tsunami, Portland definitely is, there is a mountain range between the coast and the city.  I'm not sure about Seattle but they say that Portland will be pretty fucked up by the major earthquake they are expecting.

It may be safe at it's current elevation, but isn't the next quake expected to drop a significant portion of the city below sea level?

Portland is in the Wilamette Valley between two very large mountain ranges.  While flooding from the Willamette and Columbia rivers would be a concern if the city sank too far but unless the tsunami was big enough to crest a 1,500' mountain range the tsunami just isn't a concern, sorry.

[jimmy olsen]

It would suck if you lived on the coast, but I believe the major population centers, Portland/Seattle (at least, I am pretty sure an oceanic tsunami wouldn't roll up Puget Sound or the Columbia River all that effectively), are too far away from the actual ocean to be hurt too much by a tsunami.

Both cities are theoretically safe from the tsunami, Portland definitely is, there is a mountain range between the coast and the city.  I'm not sure about Seattle but they say that Portland will be pretty fucked up by the major earthquake they are expecting.

It may be safe at it's current elevation, but isn't the next quake expected to drop a significant portion of the city below sea level?

Portland is in the Wilamette Valley between two very large mountain ranges.  While flooding from the Willamette and Columbia rivers would be a concern if the city sank too far but unless the tsunami was big enough to crest a 1,500' mountain range the tsunami just isn't a concern, sorry.

I think I got Portland mixed up with Seattle.

[sbr]

It would suck if you lived on the coast, but I believe the major population centers, Portland/Seattle (at least, I am pretty sure an oceanic tsunami wouldn't roll up Puget Sound or the Columbia River all that effectively), are too far away from the actual ocean to be hurt too much by a tsunami.

Both cities are theoretically safe from the tsunami, Portland definitely is, there is a mountain range between the coast and the city.  I'm not sure about Seattle but they say that Portland will be pretty fucked up by the major earthquake they are expecting.

It may be safe at it's current elevation, but isn't the next quake expected to drop a significant portion of the city below sea level?

Portland is in the Wilamette Valley between two very large mountain ranges.  While flooding from the Willamette and Columbia rivers would be a concern if the city sank too far but unless the tsunami was big enough to crest a 1,500' mountain range the tsunami just isn't a concern, sorry.

I think I got Portland mixed up with Seattle.

Not to downplay the problem, the earthquake and tsunami would do a number on this state but I have the Yellowstone super volcano as a bigger worry than a tsunami for the city of Portland.

[Tonitrus]

It would suck if you lived on the coast, but I believe the major population centers, Portland/Seattle (at least, I am pretty sure an oceanic tsunami wouldn't roll up Puget Sound or the Columbia River all that effectively), are too far away from the actual ocean to be hurt too much by a tsunami.

Both cities are theoretically safe from the tsunami, Portland definitely is, there is a mountain range between the coast and the city.  I'm not sure about Seattle but they say that Portland will be pretty fucked up by the major earthquake they are expecting.

It may be safe at it's current elevation, but isn't the next quake expected to drop a significant portion of the city below sea level?

Portland is in the Wilamette Valley between two very large mountain ranges.  While flooding from the Willamette and Columbia rivers would be a concern if the city sank too far but unless the tsunami was big enough to crest a 1,500' mountain range the tsunami just isn't a concern, sorry.

I think I got Portland mixed up with Seattle.

Seattle has an 2-8,000' foot mountain range in the way as well...it just also happens to have a big arm of the Pacific Ocean reaching deep inland  around that range to it.  But I am pretty sure the awkward geography of Puget Sound would wipe out the tsunami effect similar to that which devastated coastal Japan.

All those poor Native Americans and loggers living on the coast are another matter.  Though Washington's coast is really quite lightly populated (most of it is a National Park).  However, a hit on Oregon's coast would wipe out scores of tourists, resorts, and art galleries...plus endanger the world's best ice cream and cheese manufacturer.

[Admiral Yi]

Not the art galleries!