home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!pinney
- From: barrus@cod.nosc.mil
- Subject: Re: types of earthquake predictions
- Message-ID: <1992Dec21.165317.5851@nosc.mil>
- Sender: pinney@nosc.mil (Mel M. Pinney)
- Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:53:17 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
-
- In article <51678@seismo.CSS.GOV> usenet@seismo.CSS.GOV writes:
- >In article <1992Dec18.225447.23143@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
- >> <snicker>
- >>
- >> Wouldn't a magnitude 15 sort of, er, split the earth in half?
- >> But just for fun, is there any guestimate as to what the largest
- >> magnitude earthquake was in, say recent geological history? I've
- >> heard that the Chilean quake was close to 9 but is there any
- >> evidence of quakes much bigger than that?
- >
- >The 1960 Chile quake had Mw=9.6 (Mw is an open-ended magnitude scale,
- >Richter magnitude saturates at about 8.5 and cannot get larger). It
- >is the biggest quake during instrumental seismology. But there is evidence
- >it may well be the largest quake in several centuries. It broke a fault
- >area 800 km long and 200 km wide, and the sides slipped about 20 meters.
- >Hard to beat that for size. It was so big it made the earth wobble measurably,
- >and the rang like a bell for weeks. Now, imagine 240 million of those
- >all at once - that's a magnitude 15 (energy goes up by a factor of 30
- >for each unit of magnitude).
- >
- >Just so's you know, that's more energy than splitting the earth in half.
- >It's enough energy to melt the earth.
- Wasn't the Alaskan Earthquake around a 9 as well?
-
-
-