Dumbest Prediction of the Day

[JWBear]

Our house was built in 1932, and survived the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (and all others since) just fine.

[Alex]

I was curious, since they did specify above 6.7 if it really was a stupid prediction (well, the prediction isn't stupid as much as the response to it, I'm sure the scientists involved included all appropriate disclaimers).

There have been 10 6.7 or higher earthquakes in California (or nearshore waters) in the last century.

The first was 1918, a 6.9 centered in San Jacinto. Since then the longest stretch without a 6.7 earthquake in California was 28 years between a 7.7 in Kern County and a 7.2 in 1980 off shore from Eureka.

Four were experienced between 1989 and 1994 (Loma Prieta, off the Mendocino coast, Landers, and Northridge) and we are now 13 years since the last one.

Looking through the longer historical data it looks like the longest stretch was from 1873 (Crescent City -- though Owens Valley had three in 1872) to 1906 (you've probably heard of that one) or 33 years.

So I won't go so far as saying 'dumb prediction' but certainly obvious.

I'm more interested that they say 30% chance of a 6.7+ on the Hayward Fault, which would probably be just about the worst case scenario for California.

[Morrigoon]

I've always held that we average a "major" quake in SoCal every 20 years or so.

Sylmar: 1972
Northridge: 1994

I predict the next 6+ quake will happen in the next 13 years

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Alex

I was curious, since they did specify above 6.7 if it really was a stupid prediction (well, the prediction isn't stupid as much as the response to it, I'm sure the scientists involved included all appropriate disclaimers).

There have been 10 6.7 or higher earthquakes in California (or nearshore waters) in the last century.

The first was 1918, a 6.9 centered in San Jacinto. Since then the longest stretch without a 6.7 earthquake in California was 28 years between a 7.7 in Kern County and a 7.2 in 1980 off shore from Eureka.

Four were experienced between 1989 and 1994 (Loma Prieta, off the Mendocino coast, Landers, and Northridge) and we are now 13 years since the last one.

Looking through the longer historical data it looks like the longest stretch was from 1873 (Crescent City -- though Owens Valley had three in 1872) to 1906 (you've probably heard of that one) or 33 years.

So I won't go so far as saying 'dumb prediction' but certainly obvious.

I'm more interested that they say 30% chance of a 6.7+ on the Hayward Fault, which would probably be just about the worst case scenario for California.

I flipped a coin ten times. Four times it landed heads. Six times it landed tails. So I guess there is a 60% chance of getting tails on any future toss.

[Alex]

That's not at all what I'm saying. I understand the statistical analysis is much more complex.

I was just looking to see if, from a completely pop. sci. point of view there is anything surprising about this story. And since over the last 300 years there has only been one period longer than 30 years without a 6.7+ earthquake in California, there really isn't (especially since the actual prediction is within 47 years which is far longer than any previous period).

Scientifically, the big new is that the certainty is 99.7% (or whatever it was) rather than 91.3 or something. But from a general news reading culture that is a meaningless distinctions.

[tracilicious]

I'm hoping that the next one is big enough to give Arizona some nice beaches.


(I'm kidding!!!)

[Kevy Baby]

You want Texas and New Mexico to slide into the Gulf of Mexico?

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

You want Texas and New Mexico to slide into the Gulf of Mexico?

Works for me!

[JWBear]

There was a 5.2 earthquake in Illinois this morning.