Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
06-04-2015, 12:38 PM
I never talked to the writer of that article. I talked to Larry Ohanlon, who works for AGU as "specialist, Social Media". I provided background to the Legg paper. Legg and other mostly focused on the strike-slip faults, which I was not referring to. The offshore strike-slip fault systems continue far south into Mexican waters, so if 300 km length ruptured in one quake, could approach M8. But, as a guess, I'd say they generally would rupture in smaller quakes: the crust is different than inland: is less thick.
What I was discussing with OHanlon was different: it was about the faults that could be responsible for the 200 km by 40 km thrust anticlines (anticlinoria=more complicated). I meant to suggest that this is completely not understood; the faults would be flatter. I provided copies of two Masters theses (I and others worked with these students) to OHanlon. By the scale of the anticlinoria, if the causative fault system is brittle/seismogenic back towards the mainland, then this produce be a M8. But, I don't have direct evidence of this.
On the other hand, a different group published a paper in 2014 that the thrust fault system between Ventura and Santa Barbara-UCSB, and west and east of there, was capable of a M7.7 to 8.1 earthquake. I am working on this fault system and it is well-imaged. However, the very large uplift events documented near Ventura are very much NOT representative of the system farther west.
I'm guessing it was Legg who was talking about big tsunamis crashing into the coast: I don't think I said that.
I have almost no experience with the media, but I have seen and heard problems like this. I suppose if it gives some attention to the offshore faults, that is a good thing. But the article Brian linked to is too alarmist. That's is probably where the worried Chinese UCSB student got my name.
Chris
What I was discussing with OHanlon was different: it was about the faults that could be responsible for the 200 km by 40 km thrust anticlines (anticlinoria=more complicated). I meant to suggest that this is completely not understood; the faults would be flatter. I provided copies of two Masters theses (I and others worked with these students) to OHanlon. By the scale of the anticlinoria, if the causative fault system is brittle/seismogenic back towards the mainland, then this produce be a M8. But, I don't have direct evidence of this.
On the other hand, a different group published a paper in 2014 that the thrust fault system between Ventura and Santa Barbara-UCSB, and west and east of there, was capable of a M7.7 to 8.1 earthquake. I am working on this fault system and it is well-imaged. However, the very large uplift events documented near Ventura are very much NOT representative of the system farther west.
I'm guessing it was Legg who was talking about big tsunamis crashing into the coast: I don't think I said that.
I have almost no experience with the media, but I have seen and heard problems like this. I suppose if it gives some attention to the offshore faults, that is a good thing. But the article Brian linked to is too alarmist. That's is probably where the worried Chinese UCSB student got my name.
Chris