Small tremors along West Coast could lead to big1

[kalakoa]

it will be blamed on global warming

Worse, people will get massive bailouts, even though "they should have known better" than to build on an active fault zone.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

elevation will go down...
-------
But it will be blamed on global warming, caused by man...

I think the scientists can sort out earthquake subsidence from melting polar ice caps. And generally, the people who trust that scientists will accurately calculate a richter or Antarctic ice coverage from satellite photos aren’t the ones who would call Coast To Coast in the middle of the night with the premise you suggested.

[TomK]

I don't think knowledgeable people will blame an earthquake on global warming. On the other hand, I think there is some confusion here. The article in the OP's talks about earthquakes inland which won't cause tsunamis. However, this is all linked to the Cascadia subduction zone. A big earthquake there will likely send a tsunami this way plus affect several ports that serve Hawaii (as well as ports in Hawaii). It is definitely a scenario that would cause us many problems, not just from the waves but the lack of food supplies reaching us afterward.

[MarkD]

"Cascadia earthquake would basically destroy the west coast of the USA. California might be spared the earthquake, but not the tsunamis."

- - - -

Interesting proposition. Don't tsunamis have a much greater effect on coastlines that receive the waves directly rather than obliquely? Giant waves from the Pacific Northwest will strike Hawaii and Japan directly, but California at much of an angle.

Moreover, the coast of California juts east sharply below Point Conception, creating a shadow of sorts. This is the most heavily populated coast. Will those waves wrap in to this area?

San Francisco further north--is surge expected to enter giant S.F. Bay? And are there estimates for the outcome to Hawaii?

[Chunkster]

Wrap-around tsunamis can be quite destructive, at least when it comes to islands. I believe one of the deadly 20th C. Hilo waves originated in Chile which does not face windward Hawaii Island. I don't know how that would play out on a continental scale, though.

[geochem]

This link shows a modeled energy distribution from the 1700 Cascadia earthquake: https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/tsunami-hi...adia-1700/

It appears that some of the energy from a future event will reach Hawaii but we will be well off the primary tsunami trajectory. The one we really need to be aware of is an event along the Aleutian trench - this article discusses that potential: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/...california

[terracore]

Here's an animation of the damage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W2iUl0VB8c&feature=youtu.be

[TomK]

Chunster - wrap-around tsunamis have indeed created a lot of damage and deaths. Tsunamis behave just like any wave in physics, they get diffracted and refracted. Diffraction happens when waves meet a "sharp" edge, like the sides of an island or points sticking out from a continent. Then they also get refracted by changes of density in the ocean - mainly caused by changes in depth. And then you have to consider the precise origin of the earthquake.

It's not something anyone can accurately predict, at least right now. Terracore's video link shows that it seems likely there were big tsunamis all the way down to SoCal and Hawaii got hit badly. I think the only safe thing to say is that if a similar earthquake occurred, if it was farther to the east, the mainland west cost would be better off, but if it occurred more to the west, the west coast would be hit harder.

In both cases, we would be hit hard. On the other hand, it would depend on how deep the earthquake was and whether it generated a tsunami in the first place. There are so many factors involved it's no surprise it's not something that can be predicted.