1964 it was 9.2 (20+ times greater) ... which makes a 7.x look like child’s play. Pretty much in the same area
“Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude; as an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the magnitude scale corresponds to the release of about 31 times more energy than the amount associated with the preceding whole number value”
7.0 = “Causes damage to most buildings, some to partially or completely collapse or receive severe damage. Well-designed structures are likely to receive damage. Felt across great distances with major damage mostly limited to 250 km from epicenter.”
9.x = “At or near total destruction - severe damage or collapse to all buildings. Heavy damage and shaking extends to distant locations. Permanent changes in ground topography.”
I lived in Southern California for the Whittier quake of 1987 and the Northridge quake of the early 90s. So I’m familiar with seismic events. But a 7.0.... no.
Shouldn't that be 100+ times greater? Each whole number increase is tenfold, so a 9 versus 7 would be 10x10 or 100 times greater.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/calculator.php
A 9.2 is almost 2,000 times stronger than a 7.0 in terms of the amount of energy. Of course depth (and distance from the epicenter are critical too).
My son was joking with me about how this EQ would be blamed on being caused by global warming.
“Well - that’s just stupid. An EQ expends energy. Energy creates heat, ergo - EQ’s cause global warming.”
1964 was arguably the most intense earthquake to ever hit “inhabited” land, at least in modern history,.