will california fall in the ocean in a earthquake?
399728
Common Myths about Earthquakes\n\nQ: Will California eventually fall off into the ocean?\n\nA: No. The San Andreas Fault System, which crosses California from the Salton Sea in the south to Cape Mendocino in the north, is the boundary between the Pacific Plate and North American Plate. The Pacific Plate is moving northwest with respect to the North American Plate at approximately 46 millimeters per year (the rate your fingernails grow). The strike-slip earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are a result of this plate motion. The plates are moving horizontally past one another, so California is not going to fall into the ocean. However, Los Angeles and San Francisco will one day be adjacent to one another!
138413
Due to different tectonic plates that move in different directions, the Peninsula was formed. \n\nRight in the middle, the San Andreas fault will continue with the splitting apart of both plates, until the Peninsula and a part of California from the Sea of Cortes up to San Francisco will become an island and continue moving North toward Alaska, while the Continental Plate will continue to slide West in the next 5 million years.
127553
Earthquakes are caused by the shifting of the Earth's tectonic plates. We don't get earthquakes like the West coast here on the east coast because there simply isn't as much shifting.
764571
I don't think it could "fall" into the ocean.\nBut if you follow along with global warming rasing the sea level, then at some point if it stayed where it is, that location would be underwater.  I would have to think it would be moved further inland if that happened.
1080558
Earthquakes in the Pacific region occur at different seasons of the year and with different frequency. Scientists from the Shirshov Institute of Oceanology RAS and the Institute of Marine Geology and Geophysics FEB RAS in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk have proved that these differences are not by chance and that the position of the Earth in its orbit influences their frequency.\n\nThe researchers reviewed the within-year distribution of earthquakes for several subregions of the Pacific Ocean: on the Aleutian Islands, Kuril Islands and Kamchatka, New Zealand and in several points in the south of Oceania and South America. They divided all earthquakes in terms of the magnitude of their nidus and depth. The analysis showed that deep earthquakes occur evenly over the course of the year, while shallow ones occur more often in December.\n\nThey believe that the December peaks of shallow earthquakes are linked in part with tidal effects, while their periodicity is linked with the movement of the Earth in orbit. The perihelion, the minimal distance of the Earth from the Sun, comes in early January. At this time the tidal forces, brought about by the Sun, reach a maximum, just as the Sun’s linear velocity in orbit. The scientists remind us that the catastrophic Indonesian earthquake of 2004 occurred on 26 December, when the Earth was nearing perihelion, in a New Moon, when the total effect of tidal forces of the Sun and Moon had reached a maximum level. The Iranian earthquake of 2003 also occurred on 26 December.
582402
Just like the ocean after California has "The Big One", and falls into the water.
15641
far less likely to get an earthquake or tsunami because the location and size of faults in our area however there is a NASTY continental slope and shelf on the east coast that i can assure you if we were to get a large enough earthquake or subsurface landslide in the right place the northeastern U.S. would be in for one HELL of a tsunami. I had to study underwater physics and underwater topography for my job in the navy so i'm not just a doom sayer I do have a good idea what i'm talking about.
74001
When the "Big One" hits LA, it is very possible that small (less than 1 square mile) portions of the cliffs from Santa Monica to Malibu may fall in the ocean, but NO catastrophic (i.e. a city-wide or state-wide collapse) can possibly occur.  The primary reason is that all rocks have a finite strength and ability to accumulate stress.  Rocks along any fault will fail (causing an earthquake) before they can accumulate the amount of stress required to generate an earthquake capable of causing anything outside a mile or so of the coast to fall into the ocean.  That is the reason you don't see earthquakes greater in magnitude than 9-9.5....because rocks break and release their energy in the form of an earthquake before they can accumulate the stress required for a magnitude 10 or greater.
274586
There are areas that are more prone to Tsunamis than other areas.  Besides the seismic activity factor, the shape of the ocean floor has a lot to do with whether a tsunami hits a coastal area and how bad the tsunami is.  For example, in the 1964 Alaska earthquake, a tsunami wave went south and struck the California coast.  Damage ranged from minor (boats knocked against the dock) to devestating as in Crescent City where 30 city blocks were covered and 11 people died.  The seabed off of Crescent City forms a shallow slope the forces the pressure of the tsunami up into the classic "tidal wave" configuration associated with tsunamis.
906893
I assume you mean earthquake ;)\n\nTo answer your question, no. Historically, the fault line under Los Angeles and San Francisco is the worst. It is part of the Ring of Fire.\n\nThese articles will explain more:\nhttp://www.crystalinks.com/rof.html\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ring_of_Fire
106400
A 3 mile wide rock hitting the ocean could cause extreme waves to travel at 6000 km/h and as high as 5 km up in the air. Such waves would flood the entire Earth, leaving total destruction. \n\nIf it hits land, then a huge earthquake would be there and it would be like a wave on land, and maybe only a continent would see the destruction.  However, this will also cause dust to rise in the stratosphere and cover the entire Earth in complete darkness.\n\nAlso note that before the rock hits, as it enters our atmosphere at 40000 km/h, it will cause a shock wave so strong that possibly the entire Earth would be destroyed.  So if that's the case, it wouldn't really matter where it hits, because total destruction occurs before the rock hits the surface.
153582
most southern facing beaches receive their high surf from storm off of Baja.  I doubt there would have been enough bounce from the Alaska storms.
328636
In essence eveything's floating as the earth's core is liquid.\n\nThe earth's surface is made up of a series of tectonic plates which float about and bump into each other (earthquakes).  Where these plates meet each other are what are known as fault lines, the San Andreas Fault being one such.  The Asian tsunami was the result of two such plates that had been pushing into each other for many years until the force between them was so great that one plate sprung upwards like a giant spring.\n\nOver millions of years these plates have moved huge distances and continents have drifted apart or been pushed together.  If you look at maps showing the world as it would have been say 1 million years ago it's very different to how it is now.  Likewise, in another million years it will be very different from the world as we know it.
9982
its tsunami, and there would not be a western european tsunami, but i would guess that cork, in irealnd would be hit first, but the netherlans would sink because it is below sea level. i would then saw rotterdam, amsterdam, or the hauge then.
798142
If I ever become famous. it will probably be for something I majorly messed up like. . . MAN WITH JACKHAMMER STARTS QUAKE ALONG SAN ANDREAS FAULT, CAUSES CALIFORNIA TO SLIDE OFF INTO THE SEA.
590947
I don't think so. Because California is not in the list.\nAlthough is it undeniable that California is constantly attack by heavy wind but the activity of volcanoes and earthquakes will not induce typoon to California.
1011429
Unlikely because the storm will weaken after going over land. Spots along the coastline will probably get some very strong SSE-SE wind gusts off the ocean when the storm approaches - probably not 70 mph.