CMDR_Kai t1_itufwug wrote
Very useful. 10ish seconds doesn't seem like a lot, but it could be a literal lifesaver.
diacewrb t1_itup49g wrote
10 seconds is very good considering that dedicated equipment and warning systems can give people an alert from anywhere from a few seconds to up to a minute or two depending on circumstances.
kreiger-69 t1_ityxdqy wrote
Yep, one example would be a steeplejack being able to hold onto something knowing the earth was about to boogie woogie below them
HiFiGuy197 t1_itvhtz4 wrote
Of course you don’t know an earthquake is going to happen until it does (duh!) and with wave propagation speeds of up 5 miles per second, the “best” you can hope for is 10 seconds warning at 50 miles.
CosmicCreeperz t1_itycou2 wrote
Interestingly I can tell you almost exactly the propagation of this quake. I was on a zoom call with 2 others at the time, and we were about 10, 25, and 40 miles away from the epicenter.
It was confusing at first, but from when I noticed it to when the guy 15 miles (actually more like 13) away noticed it was about 4-5 seconds. So maybe 3-ish miles per second? Was pretty cool to experience that in real time :)
Also, “paid off yesterday” may be a bit of a misnomer. It certainly was a great test, but the quake itself was really mild, if longer than normal for a 5.1. I can’t imagine there were any injuries. Probably a lot of people diving under desks and then sheepishly saying… “was that it?” (But hey, you won’t know how big it is until it hits, so dive away!)
BabyGotTrack t1_ityg7es wrote
Similar experience. I’m closer to San Jose and was on a video call with someone in Oakland. My husband got the notice on his android and crossed our yard tell me about it around the time I started feeling the shaking. My colleague in Oakland didn’t feel anything for what felt like several seconds.
Financial_Nebula t1_itvu26v wrote
Not true. Large earthquakes are often preceded by smaller ones and geologists can use this information to anticipate an impending earthquake.
Raging-Fuhry t1_itvw2ij wrote
>often preceded
There are no guarantees in seismology, what may be "often" true is very different from "always" true. Large Earthquakes also often come without warning, and small earthquakes often don't precede anything. It's not reliable enough data for prediction and geologists (at least in Canada/States) aren't able to do much with it.
A technique seismologists do use is to examine the historical record and try to make empirical predictions from the frequency of large Earthquakes, but again this is an entirely empirical method and has very large error.
Dragonfruit-Still t1_itwynlg wrote
More sensors, more data, and An AI to learn it all would be an interesting possible predictor.
Moonkai2k t1_itw5f63 wrote
First off, "often" is not always. Usually it means about half the time.
Second, common sense says if I feel a small one, a bigger one may be coming. That isn't exactly stellar praise for the existing detection network.
other_usernames_gone t1_itvtojl wrote
That's not necessarily true.
If we understood the mechanics behind earthquakes well enough and had the technology to properly scan tectonic plates we might be able to predict them days, months or years ahead of time.
We might be able to notice "rough patches" in the tectonic plates, predict if and when those "rough patches" will get caught and use that to predict when earthquakes will happen.
Idk though, I'm not a seismologist.
Bay_sic t1_itw15v5 wrote
The other option is that the problem is irreducible. Like when economist warn about an impending event. The system may be too complex and therefore we will only get a probabilistic understanding of what may be. It can also be that the system is extremely sensitive to initial conditions and therefore any models we try to create will never have sufficient data to predict the quakes well enough. It may be that the time scale that earthquakes are predictable is too large to be useful for us as a "brace for impact" type of warning system.
If you are interested in this type of stuff you should look up complex systems. The Santa Fe Institute youtube channel has a lot of interesting stuff, but its a bunch of dry presentations.
Sparky323 t1_itw11sk wrote
It's not that we don't understand the mechanics, it's that we don't have the technology available to sense miles deep into the earth's crust, much less accurately. We would need to do something on the level of an MRI scan on a massively large scale.
saulblarf t1_itwg2jd wrote
>if we understood and had the technology >we might be able to
Sounds like the comment you replied to is exactly correct.
We don’t have the tech or knowledge to meaningfully predict earthquakes and we won’t for a while.
other_usernames_gone t1_itwhl8s wrote
Not really, the comment I replied to seemed to treat it as a given.
But like how we don't need to wait for it to rain to predict it might rain we might not need to wait for an earthquake to start to predict it's likely to happen.
saulblarf t1_itwi74i wrote
We “might not” one day, but currently we cannot, so the 10 second warning is the best we have.
HiFiGuy197 t1_itwu16k wrote
Although that may be kinda true, having an earthquake warning for “three days from now, plus or minus a day,” won’t actually help random people.
Or even sounding off from tiny earthquakes…
If you’re wrong, people will stop heeding your forecasts completely.
other_usernames_gone t1_itx18up wrote
It would though.
You could evacuate areas ahead of time if a large enough earthquake is predicted, or get humanitarian aid set up ahead of time. Imagine if food or water was already there in the moments after an earthquake instead of a day or two later. We could pre-set up halls and other places as emergency accommodation before the earthquake even hit, and tell people where they are ahead of time before communications could be damaged.
People would know it's a bad idea to go swimming or climbing during those days. It would also be a great opportunity for people to get their earthquake plans sorted, pack things they want to bring with them if they get evacuated.
It's easy to put off planning for an emergency when it's a hypothetical but if you know there's a 90% chance it'll happen in the next few days it's a lot easier to get motivated. Obviously people will still procrastinate but it would help.
Of course inaccuracy could be a huge issue, especially with people not trusting it. But it would be a great boon if it worked well.
HiFiGuy197 t1_itym876 wrote
I feel like we have an “equivalent” level of prediction now for hurricanes, and yet…
other_usernames_gone t1_ityqo34 wrote
I'm not saying it wouldn't still be bad.
But we can and do evacuate areas hurricanes are meant to hit ahead of time. It would be a lot better.
MSCOTTGARAND t1_itw9xq5 wrote
Will you tell my wife this?
Mental_Medium3988 t1_itxg22l wrote
ten seconds can be "dont take this bridge" or "punch it chewie" time and that could be life or death.
BalloonShip t1_itvfq7j wrote
Which means google will be killing people by not sharing this info across platforms.
OCE_Mythical t1_itvgf1f wrote
You act like this doesn't happen. Pharmaceutical companies just do this but worse daily.
N3rdProbl3ms t1_itviuif wrote
I heard the Apple Watch has this great tech that can detect issues going on in your body. Are they up for sharing?
SUPRVLLAN t1_itvjawc wrote
With relevant parties, like your doctor, yes.
The tech itself isn’t anything Apple developed themselves, it’s all based on other available components.
Coomb t1_itvmez4 wrote
The same is true of this earthquake warning system. In fact the article specifically mentions the Apple version.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments