San Francisco Bay Area - high resolution satellite image

In article , PeterN
wrote:

One of my friends, who is a matrimonial lawyer, represents a husband who
was Googling his house just to seeit. He zoomed in and saw a car in the
driveway at a time when his wife said she wouldn't be home. After a
casual question she stated that she just didn't feel like shopping that
day. She had no believable explanation for that extra car being in the
driveway. I would leave the rest of the saga to your imagination, but in
a moment of weaknesss, she confessed to having a lover.

there's no way to know if that car was at a time she wasn't going to be
home unless she was gone for an extended period of time because the
granularity of the street view is by month, at best.

On 6/21/2015 4:48 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

One of my friends, who is a matrimonial lawyer, represents a husband who
was Googling his house just to seeit. He zoomed in and saw a car in the
driveway at a time when his wife said she wouldn't be home. After a
casual question she stated that she just didn't feel like shopping that
day. She had no believable explanation for that extra car being in the
driveway. I would leave the rest of the saga to your imagination, but in
a moment of weaknesss, she confessed to having a lover.

there's no way to know if that car was at a time she wasn't going to be
home unless she was gone for an extended period of time because the
granularity of the street view is by month, at best.


Coincidense, yes. The development of facts will often pinpoint the date
and time, the street view photo was taken.



--
PeterN

On 20/06/2015 8:44 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
From ESA:

Earth observation image of the week: the San Francisco Bay Area in the
US state of California


http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Ima...o_Bay_Area_USA

which also featured on the Earth from Space video programme


http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Vid...o_Bay_Area_USA


Shame they didn't have satellites and didn't understand plate tectonics
when they decided to build a city there.

On 6/21/2015 8:04 PM, Me wrote:
On 20/06/2015 8:44 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
From ESA:

Earth observation image of the week: the San Francisco Bay Area in the
US state of California


http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Ima...o_Bay_Area_USA


which also featured on the Earth from Space video programme


http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Vid...o_Bay_Area_USA



Shame they didn't have satellites and didn't understand plate tectonics
when they decided to build a city there.


We now know all these things, and the population there is increasing as
is the cost of real estate.


--
PeterN

On 2015-06-22 01:17:08 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/21/2015 8:04 PM, Me wrote:
On 20/06/2015 8:44 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
From ESA:

Earth observation image of the week: the San Francisco Bay Area in the
US state of California

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Ima...o_Bay_Area_USA

which also featured on the Earth from Space video programme

http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Vid...o_Bay_Area_USA

Shame

they didn't have satellites and didn't understand plate tectonics
when they decided to build a city there.

We now know all these things, and the population there is increasing as
is the cost of real estate.

No kidding! Rent for a shoebox apartment in San Francisco starts at $3K+.

As far as deciding to build a city there, speak to the Spanish. They
were looking for a harbor, and they found a perfect one. They also
found the perfect place to build the final mission in the string of
missions from San Diego up the California coast.
Then James Marshall stumbled on gold at Sutter's Mill. Within three
years San Francisco went from a sleepy mission town with a population
of 200 to the gateway to the goldfields and bcame a city of almost
40,000, and it has been growing ever since. It's just that nobody told
them about the San Andreas Fault zone and the shattered eggshell of
fractures the entire bay area sits in, until the good citizens were
woken early one morning in 1906.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 22/06/2015 2:07 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-06-22 01:17:08 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/21/2015 8:04 PM, Me wrote:
On 20/06/2015 8:44 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
From ESA:

Earth observation image of the week: the San Francisco Bay Area in the
US state of California

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Ima...o_Bay_Area_USA


which also featured on the Earth from Space video programme

http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Vid...o_Bay_Area_USA


Shame

they didn't have satellites and didn't understand plate tectonics
when they decided to build a city there.

We now know all these things, and the population there is increasing
as is the cost of real estate.

No kidding! Rent for a shoebox apartment in San Francisco starts at $3K+.

As far as deciding to build a city there, speak to the Spanish. They
were looking for a harbor, and they found a perfect one. They also found
the perfect place to build the final mission in the string of missions
from San Diego up the California coast.
Then James Marshall stumbled on gold at Sutter's Mill. Within three
years San Francisco went from a sleepy mission town with a population of
200 to the gateway to the goldfields and bcame a city of almost 40,000,
and it has been growing ever since. It's just that nobody told them
about the San Andreas Fault zone and the shattered eggshell of fractures
the entire bay area sits in, until the good citizens were woken early
one morning in 1906.


I guess in many cases a natural harbour also indicated a natural hazard
- unknown at the time.
In that aerial shot of San Francisco, seeing the proximity of the city
to the clearly visible San Andreas scares me a bit. Yes I knew it was
there and of the risk (incl other faults).

On 2015-06-22 02:33:28 +0000, Me said:

On 22/06/2015 2:07 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-06-22 01:17:08 +0000, PeterN said:
On 6/21/2015 8:04 PM, Me wrote:
On 20/06/2015 8:44 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
From ESA:

Earth observation image of the week: the San Francisco Bay Area in the
US state of California

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Ima...o_Bay_Area_USA


which also featured on the Earth from Space video programme

http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Vid...o_Bay_Area_USA


Shame

they didn't have satellites and didn't understand plate tectonics
when they decided to build a city there.

We now know all these things, and the population there is increasing
as is the cost of real estate.

No kidding! Rent for a shoebox apartment in San Francisco starts at $3K+.

As far as deciding to build a city there, speak to the Spanish. They
were looking for a harbor, and they found a perfect one. They also found
the perfect place to build the final mission in the string of missions
from San Diego up the California coast.
Then James Marshall stumbled on gold at Sutter's Mill. Within three
years San Francisco went from a sleepy mission town with a population of
200 to the gateway to the goldfields and bcame a city of almost 40,000,
and it has been growing ever since. It's just that nobody told them
about the San Andreas Fault zone and the shattered eggshell of fractures
the entire bay area sits in, until the good citizens were woken early
one morning in 1906.


I guess in many cases a natural harbour also indicated a natural hazard
- unknown at the time.
In that aerial shot of San Francisco, seeing the proximity of the city
to the clearly visible San Andreas scares me a bit. Yes I knew it was
there and of the risk (incl other faults).

Yup! Major faults on both sides of the bay, the San Andreas on the
peninsula and the Hayward running through the East Bay, but if you want
a more graphic aerial illustration of the San Andreas Fault Zone, you
have to head about 3-4 hours South of the Bay area to the Carrizo
Plain. There you will find river beds, roads and fences displaced by
California's inexorable Northward movement.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Kluft-photo-Carrizo-Plain-Nov-2007-Img_0327.jpg

Unfortunately

the Spanish in 1776, didn't know it was there and didn't have the
foresight to conduct either an aerial or seismic survey.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:

Yup! Major faults on both sides of the bay, the San Andreas on the
peninsula and the Hayward running through the East Bay, but if you want
a more graphic aerial illustration of the San Andreas Fault Zone, you
have to head about 3-4 hours South of the Bay area to the Carrizo Plain.
There you will find river beds, roads and fences displaced by
California's inexorable Northward movement.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Kluft-photo-Carrizo-Plain-Nov-2007-Img_0327.jpg



Going up the cable car at Palm Springs, the San Andreas Fault is clearly
visible as a green line. The explanation is that fractured rocks along
the fault line allow water to seep up, and support the growth of plant
life in the desert.

Mort Linder

On 6/21/2015 11:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-06-22 02:33:28 +0000, Me said:

On 22/06/2015 2:07 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-06-22 01:17:08 +0000, PeterN said:
On 6/21/2015 8:04 PM, Me wrote:
On 20/06/2015 8:44 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
From ESA:

Earth observation image of the week: the San Francisco Bay Area in
the
US state of California

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Ima...o_Bay_Area_USA



which also featured on the Earth from Space video programme

http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Vid...o_Bay_Area_USA



Shame

they didn't have satellites and didn't understand plate tectonics
when they decided to build a city there.

We now know all these things, and the population there is increasing
as is the cost of real estate.

No kidding! Rent for a shoebox apartment in San Francisco starts at
$3K+.

As far as deciding to build a city there, speak to the Spanish. They
were looking for a harbor, and they found a perfect one. They also found
the perfect place to build the final mission in the string of missions
from San Diego up the California coast.
Then James Marshall stumbled on gold at Sutter's Mill. Within three
years San Francisco went from a sleepy mission town with a population of
200 to the gateway to the goldfields and bcame a city of almost 40,000,
and it has been growing ever since. It's just that nobody told them
about the San Andreas Fault zone and the shattered eggshell of fractures
the entire bay area sits in, until the good citizens were woken early
one morning in 1906.


I guess in many cases a natural harbour also indicated a natural
hazard - unknown at the time.
In that aerial shot of San Francisco, seeing the proximity of the city
to the clearly visible San Andreas scares me a bit. Yes I knew it was
there and of the risk (incl other faults).

Yup! Major faults on both sides of the bay, the San Andreas on the
peninsula and the Hayward running through the East Bay, but if you want
a more graphic aerial illustration of the San Andreas Fault Zone, you
have to head about 3-4 hours South of the Bay area to the Carrizo Plain.
There you will find river beds, roads and fences displaced by
California's inexorable Northward movement.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Kluft-photo-Carrizo-Plain-Nov-2007-Img_0327.jpg


Floyd has the right idea. He will wait in Alaska until CA comes to him,
if he lives long enough. ;-)

I.'m betting on the future. I bought oceanfront property in AZ.


Unfortunately
the Spanish in 1776, didn't know it was there and didn't have the
foresight to conduct either an aerial or seismic survey.





--
PeterN

On 23/06/2015 3:03 a.m., Mort wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

Yup! Major faults on both sides of the bay, the San Andreas on the
peninsula and the Hayward running through the East Bay, but if you want
a more graphic aerial illustration of the San Andreas Fault Zone, you
have to head about 3-4 hours South of the Bay area to the Carrizo Plain.
There you will find river beds, roads and fences displaced by
California's inexorable Northward movement.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Kluft-photo-Carrizo-Plain-Nov-2007-Img_0327.jpg




Going up the cable car at Palm Springs, the San Andreas Fault is clearly
visible as a green line. The explanation is that fractured rocks along
the fault line allow water to seep up, and support the growth of plant
life in the desert.

Perhaps they should pump fracking chemicals down there, to lube it up so
it lets rip in a whole series of little quakes, rather than just wait
for the big one. That might be what the oil companies in Oklahoma are
achieving - doing everybody a favour. (only kidding there)
I'm about 100km from a fault which is similar to the San Andreas, but
with a slightly more regular period between major events, about 300 year
average over 8,000 years. It last went off in 1717. When it lets rip,
it's going to release about 10 metres lateral slip, 2 metre vertical
displacement, over several hundred km. It will be quite a show, over
M8. The longer we wait, the bigger it will be.
I just spent 12 months repairing and strengthening my house, which had a
little bit of damage from a shallow M7.2 on a previously unmapped blind
fault with epicentre about 35km away, but about $200,000 damage from a
mere M6.3 - more or less directly underneath. To further unsettle the
nerves, we've had over 60 close/shallow aftershocks over M5, more than
500 larger than M4. I'm a bit twitchy about quakes these days - and
don't expect I'm ever going to change.