Small earthquakes will NOT relive stress from a bigger quake.

Recommended Videos

I_PET_DOGS

New member
Oct 21, 2011
12
0
0
I've felt about three today, and I have to say, what the hell is happening? Normally in California you don't feel Earthquakes daily, but today, I felt a few.

Now, a number of people think that a few small quakes will relive stress from a fault just waiting to let off a big quake. It doesn't, because remember, each maginitude is a hundred times stronger than the one before it. Sorry to bring paranoia, but say if there was a 9.6 earthquake waiting to strike, by now, it would have reduced to a 9.0 or a 8.8.


Also, next week is Earthquake weather, so keep an eye out, my fellow Californians.
 

Kermi

Elite Member
Nov 7, 2007
2,538
0
41
Earthquake weather should become a new meme.

But anyway, as I understand it you're correct - a series of smaller earthquakes will not necessarily relieve the tension building up for a larger one. The big one is inevitable.
 

Kermi

Elite Member
Nov 7, 2007
2,538
0
41
I_PET_DOGS said:
Kermi said:
Earthquake weather should become a new meme.
No. It shouldn't. Humid days here during fall are signs that a earthquake *may* happen.
Being in California is a sign that an earthquake may happen.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
usmarine4160 said:
I live in California and I haven't noticed earthquakes or earthquake weather. Maybe I should drink a little less.
According to the USGS, there's no such thing as earthquake weather to begin with.[footnote]http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=16[/footnote]
 

I_PET_DOGS

New member
Oct 21, 2011
12
0
0
Aidinthel said:
Fixed that for you. It's something that you get used to.
No, we don't get earthquakes here ALL the time, sure there are 0.9 and below ones happening all the time that seismographs can't pick up, but a 2.5 and above quake isn't something you see every day.
 

Gennadios

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,157
0
0
Bay Area native? People keep talking but I haunt felt them. You are correct, although I thought each magnitude was only 10works times stronger.
 

Deschamps

New member
Oct 11, 2008
189
0
0
ZeroMachine said:
... People actually believe that?

-_-'
It's not such an unreasonable thing to consider. If some stress is let off in some increments, it seems like the shock could be lessened when the rest is let off later. As far as misinformation goes, at least it has a bit of credibility.

That's still no reason not to correct oneself when presented with evidence of the contrary though.
 

Baradiel

New member
Mar 4, 2009
1,077
0
0
The one thing that stuck with me was this; Earthquake weather?

Can someone explain this to me? I'm not an expert in geology or meteorology, so I don't know, but I've never heard of anything called 'earthquake weather'.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Fault lines are not like balloons, let out a little air and it wont be as big. Think of it like when a balloon pops, you feel the air before the rubber hits you in the eye. The little tremors are like the air before the rubber ouchie.
 

Aidinthel

Occasional Gentleman
Apr 3, 2010
1,743
0
0
Baradiel said:
The one thing that stuck with me was this; Earthquake weather?

Can someone explain this to me? I'm not an expert in geology or meteorology, so I don't know, but I've never heard of anything called 'earthquake weather'.
It seems to be a sort of superstition. I really doubt that the weather has any notable effect on the movement of tectonic plates.
 

Plumerou

New member
Mar 7, 2011
92
0
0
Deschamps said:
ZeroMachine said:
... People actually believe that?

-_-'
It's not such an unreasonable thing to consider. If some stress is let off in some increments, it seems like the shock could be lessened when the rest is let off later. As far as misinformation goes, at least it has a bit of credibility.

That's still no reason not to correct oneself when presented with evidence of the contrary though.
it is my understanding that (english is not my main language and i lack the "correct words" so please excuse me) earth keeps building up energy so even if there are small earthquakes and it releases stress it wouldnt be much considering the Richter scale is of exponential growth, so i dont think it does much at all, still im by no means expert in the topic and could be wrong :p
 

Dinwatr

New member
Jun 26, 2011
89
0
0
I didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I've skipped something. However, I want to address the OP.

First, you have to understand that earthquakes are a very complex issue, particularly in California. I'm not aware of what part of the state you're in, but there are parts of the state (the Transverse Range, for example) where stresses are resulting in the rotation of a block of crust the size of some of the smaller Eastern states. In other areas, the stress is more north-south. In others, the stress is extensional--remember, the Basin and Range is a rift zone, akin to Africa's rift valleys. What this means is that there's so much of so many different types of stress that you simply cannot make generalizations like "small earthquakes releave stress" or "no, they don't".

To fully understand what's going on...well, I don't think that's possible at this point. To get an idea of what's going on, you need to understand how rocks react to stress. Basically, all rocks are under pressure, along all three orthogonal axes. Typically, one of these is greater than the others--and when that stress gets too high, or pore fluid pressure becomes high enough to lubricate things enough, the rock pops normal to that axis. This releaves stress along that axis, but that doesn't mean that the rock is no longer under stress. Rather, it means that a NEW axis becomes the one with the highest stress (Sigma 1 in structural geology terms).

I mentioned pore fluid pressure. That's actually a major factor. It takes more energy to move a block of rock the size of a county (particularly something like Riverside or San Bernardino) than it does to break the rock. Pore fluid pressure, however--the pressure of the water and other fluids in the cracks of the rock--can reduce that pressure by pushing the rocks apart a bit. The water is under the same pressure as the rocks (because the rocks are pushing on the water), and that pressure can make things move much, much easier than they can without it.

The other issue is that a small quake can mobilize groundwater or shift stress regimes, and cause a larger fault to cut loose. This means that a small quake can easily cause a larger one--particularly in the San Andreas Fault Zone or other large fault zones.

In short, this is a very, very complicated topic, and one which certainly needs more analysis than "I felt a few earthquakes today". ;)
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Read this article, or at least the abstract and conclusion:

http://128.197.153.21/rea/web_online/SSA03069_felzer_feb04.PDF

Bottom line: Earthquake swarms are composed of several quakes of random, independent magnitudes. Swarms of small quakes are not an indicator of an impending larger quake, although it is possible for a large quake to be included in the swarm. Determining which quakes are foreshocks, mainshocks, and aftershocks is only possible after the entire sequence is complete.

When I said frequent activity on a fault lessens the magnitude, I was talking about the long term, not individual swarms. In general, areas of active faults that experience less movement are higher risks for big quakes than areas that experience more movement, because the strain doesn't build as high.

Also, it's not a good idea to bring up Earthquake Weather unless you're using it as an example of pseudoscience or something.