Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

masseydnc t1_j83lqu6 wrote

I find it very difficult to believe, just from the standpoint of probability, that there were precisely zero earthquakes between magnitude 2.5 and 4.0, as indicated by the comment.

Also, were the earthquakes evenly spaced in time, as the lines on the chart appear to be? This makes it appear that the quakes occurred exactly 19 minutes after the last one.

5

SirHovaOfBrooklyn t1_j83nhjt wrote

When my city experienced a 7.2 magnitude earthquake almost a decade ago I remember feeling regular strong aftershocks even a month after the first one hit. The aftershocks are gonna be triggering for sure. I pray for them.

42

Big_Knife_SK t1_j83sovl wrote

What's the dark brown band in the middle for?

32

Team_Ed t1_j83tfmn wrote

Since magnitude is a logarithmic scale, showing it on a linear scale is rather misleading.

The 7.8 and 7.5 quakes were ~10x as intense in amplitude as the next highest and ~1000x as intense as all the 4s.

(If we’re talking size in energy released, the difference between 7.5 and 6.5 is 32x — meaning the 7.8 and 7.5 quakes were more energetic than all the others combined.)

405

xJCADDx t1_j83x2qp wrote

HAARP was put to good use on this one 🤣

−9

abhishyam2007 t1_j83zw7b wrote

Replying to Team_Ed (#1,778,614)

Thanks! I didn't know that there was such a huge difference between 7.5 & 7.8... do you know any logarithmic scale that denotes these quakes? I want to see how it looks when plotted..

19

rivermamma t1_j84095w wrote

I remember the aftershocks were the worst after the Loma Prieta Earthquake. The ground would not stop shaking. Very emotional and scary. I remember crying out one night to the earth to just stop. Can’t imagine what these folks are going through with an even stronger earthquake.

7

VALMaX1 t1_j84aea5 wrote

What are the chances of this happening again in the next few years?

2

VALMaX1 t1_j84afib wrote

What are the chances of this happening again in the next few years?

5

borgendurp t1_j84jpeu wrote

Replying to abhishyam2007 (#1,778,939)

>Thanks! I didn't know that there was such a huge difference between 7.5 & 7.8...

Where'd you get that from their comment? I mean, it is a big difference surely, but they didn't compare those two

0

D0NW0N t1_j84l93z wrote

Erdogan should’ve put his money towards building buildings not made out of mud and stone instead of dropping bombs on Syria.

−1

xalibr t1_j84s1ew wrote

What does depth exactly mean in this context?

1

MichelanJell-O t1_j84v43o wrote

At a glance, it looks like the x-axis should be time, when in fact it's just the number of earthquakes. That's a bit misleading.

7

cote112 t1_j84xz8u wrote

Replying to Team_Ed (#1,778,614)

They should probably change the seismic scale to 0-100 to show the difference between the big quakes and small to medium ones. Cause 5.6 sounds pretty close to 7.6, but it's not.

1

Lethlnjektn t1_j852pr3 wrote

Is it common for the levels to remain at 4+ for that long of time? Or is the instrument just set that way?

1

Team_Ed t1_j8543sw wrote

Replying to cote112 (#1,780,861)

I mean. A 9.0 quake is 100 million times stronger in amplitude than a 1.0 tremor. 10.0 is 1 billion times stronger

So, if you wanted a linear scale to cover the same range of amplitude as the log. scale, you'd either need it to go from 0 to 1,000,000,000 ...

... or, if you really wanted it to be a linear scale going to 100, you'd have to be OK with this Turkish quake registering a 0.6 on your scale.

9

satoshi__nakamoto__ t1_j85myg1 wrote

Can we have a comparative graph with Nepal's earthquake a few years back?

0

Phallusmagnifico t1_j85xif0 wrote

Is Biden gonna help Turkey like they do Ukraine? Probably not.

−2

Switch4589 t1_j85z9z8 wrote

Replying to Team_Ed (#1,778,614)

You don’t add 10x for each magnitude step, you multiply it, so a 7 is 1000x more shaking than a 4 (not 30x). Also the energy released is 32x for each level on the scale, so the same gap (7 vs 4) represents a 32000x increase in energy

14

millenniumtree t1_j86bz4h wrote

FYI: Richter scale hasn't been used in decades. It is now just "magnitude".

1

CC-5576-03 t1_j86cr3c wrote

Keep in mind that the richter scale is logarithmic, so the 7.8 magnitude earthquake was about 4000 times stronger than the the common ~4.2 magnitude earthquakes

3

Tommyblockhead20 t1_j86d03r wrote

Replying to borgendurp (#1,782,556)

Huh? That’s just… not how earthquakes work. I guarantee you you’ve lived through probably hundreds, if not thousands of magnitude 1 earthquakes. They are extremely weak, but extremely common.

Every 1 number higher on the Richter scale, that means earthquakes are 10 times as powerful, but 10 times less likely. So for every 8 magnitude earthquake (like the one in Turkey), there was probably about 10 7’s, 100 6’s, 1,000 5’s, 10,000 4’s, 100,000 3’s, 1,000,000 2’s, and 10,000,000 1’s.

So no, I don’t think there was 2 7-8s, ~10 6’s, ~20 5’s, ~100 4’s, and no 0-4 magnitude earthquakes… They just didn’t bother showing the super weak and super frequent ones.

1

Switch4589 t1_j86d427 wrote

Replying to tankmayvin (#1,783,723)

Yea I’m with you there. I can understand if someone doesn’t realise that it’s a logarithmic scale, but people who do and then still get it wrong, blah.

Coming from a country which very routinely gets earthquakes, these numbers are very familiar to me, we learnt about them in school and often have “earthquake drills” similar to fire drills to practise what you are meant to do when one occurs.

2

tankmayvin t1_j86dsnn wrote

Replying to Switch4589 (#1,783,851)

I think the big problem is that humans have a general tendency towards intellectual lazyness.

The way we educate is increasingly promoting/enabling this sort of lazyness even though the hurdle of accessing the knowledge shrinks every year.

There is just literally zero excuse for not googling "Richter scale" at some point.

0

Switch4589 t1_j86gne3 wrote

Replying to tankmayvin (#1,783,887)

I have come to realise that effectively searching for information is actually a rare skill people have.

First off a lot of people don’t even bother taking it upon themselves to begin to search, they just copy/paste whatever other people are saying. And even when they do try and search for something, they barely know what to search for to find what they want. If it’s literally not the first ranked google result they just give up.

With social media there is absolutely no incentive to fact-check anything and you actually get rewarded for not doing so. Getting in early and spewing out an incorrect opinion often get you more engagement than taking your time and posting the often-boring truth.

0

tankmayvin t1_j86i8sy wrote

Replying to Switch4589 (#1,784,034)

Yup. I agree with everything you've said. The quality of discourse has rapidly declined in the social media age as well.

I'm not that old, but still old enough to remember a time period where the technical barriers to even accessing the internet kept a lot of the worse offenders off/out.

It's a sorry state of affairs now.

0

Vyper11 t1_j86iio1 wrote

Replying to SirHovaOfBrooklyn (#1,778,307)

I know I’m late here but I live in Buffalo, NY and the few hours after the earthquakes hit Turkey we experienced one, I believe it came as like a 3.8-4 and I’ve never been through that so at 6am it was quite a crazy fucking feeling. Extremely lucky it wasn’t any worse and no one died. Feel terrible for the people in Turkey and wouldn’t wish what I felt on anyone and the one we had wasn’t even “bad” per se. I couldn’t comprehend anything on the far end of their scale. 7.8? Jesus

−1

xhowlinx t1_j86jw3r wrote

really needing to make sure people stop finding cities and history and what not in thier basements, how can the current paradigm be upheld if randos are finding cities?

1

borgendurp t1_j86ml3w wrote

Replying to Tommyblockhead20 (#1,783,843)

.. no, in fact, I have not lived through "probably hundreds" as the biggest I've lived through was a 1,5 one. And that was the only one above 1 where I live. In 28 years.

>So for every 8 magnitude earthquake (like the one in Turkey), there was probably about 10 7’s, 100 6’s, 1,000 5’s, 10,000 4’s, 100,000 3’s, 1,000,000 2’s, and 10,000,000 1’s.

>So no, I don’t think there was 2 7-8s, ~10 6’s, ~20 5’s, ~100 4’s, and no 0-4 magnitude earthquakes… They just didn’t bother showing the super weak and super frequent ones.

You're just literally pulling numbers out of your ass lol.

1

Tommyblockhead20 t1_j86ru04 wrote

Replying to borgendurp (#1,784,336)

Ok, I will admit I misspoke there. Since magnitude 1 quakes are so weak, they actual affect a tiny area, so you won’t actually be on top of the epicenter for that many earthquakes unless you live on a fault line. What I meant was you are in the general area of that many quakes, like within 100-200 km. A distance that you would feel it if there was a major earthquake. Also, I wasn’t talking about earthquakes above 1, but earthquakes that were 1. But it doesn’t even really made as that was just an example.

My point is small earthquakes are way more common than the large ones. I forgot to include my sources for the frequency numbers, so here you go.

https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/fact-sheet/how_often_do_earthquakes_occur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

For the Turkey numbers, I literally looked at the image from this post and did my best guess. Feel free to count them yourself and let me know what you counted. But I think even at a quick glance, it’s pretty clear that the lower the magnitude was, the more quakes there were, until suddenly it hits 4 and there’s 0 with a magnitude less than 4? No way. That’s just not how earthquakes work. In fact, almost nothing in nature works like that. It’s usually some kind of curve, not exponentially increasing and then suddenly 0.

1

borgendurp t1_j86subu wrote

Replying to Tommyblockhead20 (#1,784,616)

Literally. None of your sources. Back your claim. If this is so undeniably true. Show me something that literally says "between 4,0 or higher earthquakes, there's always minor earthquakes in the range of 0-4,0". I think we both know you can't do that.

1

viether t1_j86yuws wrote

Replying to serialjoker_69 (#1,784,785)

I was a kid for loma prieta, and I was TERRIFIED the house would collapse on me while I slept for years after. Then you know… you live through a couple more earthquakes and realize that with building codes and all that the chances were low of something super catastrophic happening.

2

mo_tag t1_j876ybn wrote

Replying to Team_Ed (#1,781,250)

No, because you're not comparing the Turkish earthquakes with a scale 10 earthquake so you can put the 7.8 quake at 100, and the 4.0 quakes would be hardly visible which makes sense since they happen every day and pretty much never make the news

1

lpangelrob t1_j879axy wrote

You don’t want to emphasize the deepest earthquakes, those are the ones less likely to be felt (assuming identical magnitude).

1

lookpaimonreddit t1_j879c2n wrote

It would be interesting to see it with an understanding of distance and where all these earthquakes epicenter is.

As an earthquake of 7+ hits, then the aftershocks like the ones felt across the Levant into Egypt. Cyprus and even other Mediterranean cities felt aftershocks. My question is, would these aftershocks register as separate earthquakes in different area that they are felt in or register as one continuous delayed shock from the Mag 7+ that happened miles away?

If all these happened within Turkeys border, then there must be an even larger set of data points if we include other countries within those same 48 hours.

Earthquakes are frightening & I wish all those affected strength. The region is in dire shape to begin with.

1