This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Megathrust earthquake be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It is requested that a geological diagram or diagrams be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
This article doesn't state what scale the magnitudes are for. I suppose it's the moment magnitude scale? Brianjd 06:10, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
The magnitude of the 1700 Cascadia earthquake is estimated from Japanese tsunami data and ranges from 8.7 to 9.2. Articles on this earthquake often state Richter scale. However, I would take it to mean moment magnitude scale. I just did some research and I saw Richter scale mentioned with these numbers here and there. I guess it's just being sloppy. I came across this article http://www.msu.edu/~fujita/earthquake/bigquake.html which gives the moment magnitudes as 1700 Cascadia 9, 1960 Chilean 9.5/9.6 and 1964 Alaska 9.2.
For comparision, I looked up the non-megathrust 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The reference above gives the magnitude as 8.0, the duration was 45-60 seconds and the length of fracture along the San Andreas fault was 430km (270mi). This shows that it requires a megathrust earthquake with its 1000km fracture to generate the energy release of a magnitude 9 plus earthquake. In fact all earthquakes since 1900 of magnitude 9 or greater have been megathrust earthquakes. Another example of a large non-megathrust earthquake is the 2002 Denali (Alaskan) earthquake, magnitude 7.9, duration 1.5-2 minutes, depth 4.2km (3mi) and length of fracture 330km.
Megathrust earthquakes are not only ocean/continental collisions, but also continental/continental collisions, unable to cause subduction, they are the reason many mountains are formed, such as the Himalayas (Above by User:Jordskjelv)
The current wording reads, "...no other type of known tectonic activity can produce earthquakes of this scale." Does this mean that
or is the assertion, as the wording would imply, that
If it is the latter, wouldn't that need sourcing? Zach99998 ( talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That section is very US-centric and it isn't of much importance for non-US inhabitants. 200.90.235.185 ( talk) 06:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
79.167.195.21, I reverted your edit because it was a bare statement with no reference to back it up, not because I thought it was dubious.
You clearly know more about editing Wikipedia than your short contribution list would allow; perhaps you forgot to log in?— Gorthian ( talk) 19:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I do not have an account. You should clearly know more than erase a statement because you did not like it AND did not do the necessary attempt to verify a counterclaim on your own . Perhaps it's best that you realise at some point that an opinion is not a scientific fact. Since I'm given a benefit of the doubt within rational limts I can make a fucking edit, unless you're inept to use your mind in this situation then t'is YOU who must prove it's dubious.
Consider your fancy-based revert reverted and my participation after this post eclipsed.
79.167.195.21 ( talk) 19:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Megathrust earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Megathrust earthquake be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It is requested that a geological diagram or diagrams be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
This article doesn't state what scale the magnitudes are for. I suppose it's the moment magnitude scale? Brianjd 06:10, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
The magnitude of the 1700 Cascadia earthquake is estimated from Japanese tsunami data and ranges from 8.7 to 9.2. Articles on this earthquake often state Richter scale. However, I would take it to mean moment magnitude scale. I just did some research and I saw Richter scale mentioned with these numbers here and there. I guess it's just being sloppy. I came across this article http://www.msu.edu/~fujita/earthquake/bigquake.html which gives the moment magnitudes as 1700 Cascadia 9, 1960 Chilean 9.5/9.6 and 1964 Alaska 9.2.
For comparision, I looked up the non-megathrust 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The reference above gives the magnitude as 8.0, the duration was 45-60 seconds and the length of fracture along the San Andreas fault was 430km (270mi). This shows that it requires a megathrust earthquake with its 1000km fracture to generate the energy release of a magnitude 9 plus earthquake. In fact all earthquakes since 1900 of magnitude 9 or greater have been megathrust earthquakes. Another example of a large non-megathrust earthquake is the 2002 Denali (Alaskan) earthquake, magnitude 7.9, duration 1.5-2 minutes, depth 4.2km (3mi) and length of fracture 330km.
Megathrust earthquakes are not only ocean/continental collisions, but also continental/continental collisions, unable to cause subduction, they are the reason many mountains are formed, such as the Himalayas (Above by User:Jordskjelv)
The current wording reads, "...no other type of known tectonic activity can produce earthquakes of this scale." Does this mean that
or is the assertion, as the wording would imply, that
If it is the latter, wouldn't that need sourcing? Zach99998 ( talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That section is very US-centric and it isn't of much importance for non-US inhabitants. 200.90.235.185 ( talk) 06:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
79.167.195.21, I reverted your edit because it was a bare statement with no reference to back it up, not because I thought it was dubious.
You clearly know more about editing Wikipedia than your short contribution list would allow; perhaps you forgot to log in?— Gorthian ( talk) 19:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I do not have an account. You should clearly know more than erase a statement because you did not like it AND did not do the necessary attempt to verify a counterclaim on your own . Perhaps it's best that you realise at some point that an opinion is not a scientific fact. Since I'm given a benefit of the doubt within rational limts I can make a fucking edit, unless you're inept to use your mind in this situation then t'is YOU who must prove it's dubious.
Consider your fancy-based revert reverted and my participation after this post eclipsed.
79.167.195.21 ( talk) 19:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Megathrust earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)