Replies

Normally it would be fun to engage further in a battle of wits, however it is unfair since you are unarmed. Most of your last is nothing but projection, ad hominem and just poor reading and scientific comprehension.

The simple fact that the Cascadia subduction zone is a known mag 9 feature, with demonstrable periodic recurrence is pretty much not up for argument - and money grubbing bureaucrats have no say over the matter - its science. BTW - your first failure in reading comprehension is that I didn’t put a definitive time line to the next quake - only that it is coming and the recurrence intervals have wide error bars. But why ruin your rant on just that.

Your involvement in emergency management in PNW must have been to bring the coffee as you don’t understand your poorly produced ‘citation’ Or you were just another one of those greedy bureaucrats.

A USGS scientist is an idiot - with no supporting background on how technically he is wrong - right got it. My career involved working with a number of USGS geologist/seismologists and paleoseismologists - and they have been top quality scientists. Nope, you don’t get a USGS paleoseismologist position by being an idiot - those are highly competitive positions. but then its easier for you to character assassinate when you can’t counter their views any other way.

Oh and now you progress to the ‘true scotsman’ fallacy only renaming it true conservatives.

Sadly, science isn’t a conservative issue alone, but in this field it must stand on the facts and evidence. Contrary to your bleat, I didn’t cite anyone but my own observations based on multiple studies and reports I’ve read over the course of my career over the years - so much for your straw man on that one. Even your post of the projected shake map supports me. But leave it to self-proclaimed debunkers like yourself to debunk yourself in the process.

Lets see - “Ironically, it does NOT project 9-9.3 shaking anywhere ashore.”
The contour version of the same figure shows level VIII shaking eastward to (gasp) the general trend of I-5. In my original post I clearly stated things will be bad west of I-5 - I never made the controversial ‘citation’ you claim I did. Try common sense that if level VIII is present as far east as I-5, its gonna be a lot worse the closer to the epicenter (common sense). You post a picture with no link to the contouring methodology or assumptions - ‘hot posting’ eh? lets just throw a picture up and ignore those key features in how it was created. Since it depicts the majority of the potential damage to the west of I-5 my observation is supported by your very own post.

In that alone it doesn’t properly match the japanese map. but deeper comparison would ruin your bleat as well. You like to compare apples to oranges on this subject - with your self proclaimed trained eye.

” the Cascade Range presents a geologic barrier to a subduction event,”
BTW - the Cascade mountains are there BECAUSE of subduction of the plate, but then this is just more evidence of geologic ignorance and inability to be concise on display. You wouldn’t get past undergraduate structural and plate tectonic geology courses with that assessment. Sad.
Oh and if the Cascades are such a ‘barrier’ you may have to wonder why a potential 9 quake will be felt as far east as at least most of Idaho? That’s from your map too. SMH

BTW - The Seattle Fault has been known for a while as well - but I guess you want to wrap that up in those money grubbing bureaucrats as well.

SMH - your analysis of the regional geology is so miserable on the whole it is worthless to continue any further discussions. Remarkable (or perhaps not so remarkable) is your reading comprehansion skills in regards to what I actually posted - and since you are lacking even in that elementary skill it is further worthless to continue. Go off and enjoy your bubble, you are not worth any further responses.