4 ms·
The scale of geological time never ceases to impress: “There was plenty of accumulated stress, enough to permit a quake with 3 m (10 ft) of slip. That suggests
by ianai 7y ago
The scale of geological time never ceases to impress:
“There was plenty of accumulated stress, enough to permit a quake with 3 m (10 ft) of slip. That suggests that one can, indeed, have aftershocks 150 years after very large mainshocks”
- mc32 7y agoWhat I don’t get is how is a quake which happens on a disconnected and different fault (heretofore unknown) an aftershock of a previous quake (which occurred over 100 years ago)? I looks like quakes are on a continuum. The extremes are, each quake is an individual event; on the other all quakes are a result and continuation of previous quakes. It seems like the slider position on the continuum is up to a bit of “interpretation”.
- hvs 7y agoAs a person that knows nothing about this subject, that's the impression I got as well. The tectonic plates are constantly moving, so of course earthquakes in one place will often cause stress in another place. Understanding this process is certainly important, though.
- ianai 7y agoI think it’s closer to being a constant chain of reactions than otherwise - because the earth has so much heat and magma below its crust.
- Retric 7y agoWhile plants are moving over 1cm per year that’s not all across a single fault. If you look at a map of them California has an extensive fault network which means it takes far longer than 100 years for a single fault to build up 3m worth of stress. Thus, you can have multiple points of stress all linked where it’s not obvious which one is going to slip first, but they are likely to cluster over relatively short periods. Where 100 years can still be considered short.