Is a 10.0 earthquake actually possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ElliotSmith
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earthquake
Click For Summary
A magnitude 10.0 earthquake is not theoretically possible according to the moment magnitude scale (Mw), which measures earthquake magnitudes logarithmically. The largest recorded earthquake was a 9.5 magnitude in Chile in 1960. The scale indicates that a magnitude increase represents a tenfold increase in seismic wave amplitude and approximately 31.6 times more energy release. Tectonic plate boundaries currently known are not large enough to accumulate the stress required for a magnitude 10 event. The friction on fault lines would cause them to break before reaching such a magnitude. While other geological events, like supervolcano eruptions or asteroid impacts, could theoretically release energy equivalent to or greater than a 10.0 earthquake, these are not classified as earthquakes. The consensus in the seismological community is that no existing fault can generate a magnitude 10 earthquake due to the limitations of fault length and the mechanics of tectonic stress.
  • #31
FactChecker said:
in small, continuous increments that prevent stresses to build to that extent?
"Orogeny" the word you're looking for?
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32
Bystander said:
"Orogeny" the word you're looking for?
To add to that:
The processes of orogeny can take tens of millions of years and build mountains from plains or from the seabed.
Hardly sounds like an earthquake
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
  • #33
FactChecker said:
It seems that the uplifting of the great mountain ranges like the Rockies, Alps, Andes, etc. would supply enough energy for magnitude 10 earthquakes if the techtonic plates got stuck enough to release energy in a single large earthquake. What would one call the processes that release such energy in small, continuous increments that prevent stresses to build to that extent?
That's the whole point, it is in increments, not a bunch of M10 events. There is no comparison
and as stated several times, there just isn't a plate boundary capable of accumulating enough stress
to produce a M10. The friction on the fault surface is overcome before enough stress can accumulateD
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #34
A M10 is 5 times more powerful than the strongest quake on record, which was a 9.5 in San Francisco, which happened in 1906.
 
  • #35
davenn said:
That's the whole point, it is in increments, not a bunch of M10 events. There is no comparison
and as stated several times, there just isn't a plate boundary capable of accumulating enough stress
to produce a M10. The friction on the fault surface is overcome before enough stress can accumulate
This is exactly what I had in mind in my first post, #14. In my ignorance I expressed it as energy released in smaller earthquakes. My thought was that something (be it friction overcome, smaller quakes, or something else) would happen before an M 10 level of stress was reached.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes davenn
  • #36
ElliotSmith said:
A M10 is 5 times more powerful than the strongest quake on record, which was a 9.5 in San Francisco, which happened in 1906.

this is incorrect
The 1906 San Francisco quake was only around a 7.9

You really meant to say the Chilean quake of 1960 which was the Mw 9.5Dave
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes phinds
  • #38
RonL said:
After reading through this article, I'm left wondering if there might be tremendous sized voids inside Earth's mantle, that if displaced in some way could allow major shifts in rock formations. Does anyone have ideas about this?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ntains-taller-everest-lurk-deep-inside-earth/
Given the pressure, it's hard to see how "voids" of any significant size could be sustained.
 
  • #39
phinds said:
Given the pressure, it's hard to see how "voids" of any significant size could be sustained.
Indeed. The fact that Earth's interior is heterogenous (like: having interior mountains) doesn't mean these structures are rigid and surrounded by voids. They simply are embedded in other likewise very dense - but perhaps more pliable - media.

Instead of ice cubes in a tumbler, think crunchy peanut butter.
 
  • Like
Likes diogenesNY, Klystron, jim mcnamara and 1 other person
  • #40
Okay: re relieving pressure by making small quakes does NOT work to prevent bigger ones:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/megaqk_facts_fantasy.php

PLEASE read the link before you post any more suppositions. Thank you.
Further ad hoc assertions will be moved the Earth's core.

Parts of this thread reminded me of why the USGS published this pop science version. Note 'facts and fantasy'

Have a nice day.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes phinds, BillTre and Klystron
  • #41
jim mcnamara said:
Further ad hoc assertions will be moved the Earth's core.
Nice. Purgatory for posts!
 
  • #43
End Permian extinction.

Long term massive volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia which lasted for long periods:
https://samnoblemuseum.ou.edu/understanding-extinction/mass-extinctions/end-permian-extinction/
##CO_2## levels rose enormously: ocean and ambient surface temperatures soared. Temperatures would have been high enough to kill off almost all land and marine plants, algae, and phytoplankton. 95% percent of marine species died off.

No asteroid collisions to blame.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn and BillTre
  • #44
jim mcnamara said:
End Permian extinction.

Long term massive volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia which lasted for long periods:
https://samnoblemuseum.ou.edu/understanding-extinction/mass-extinctions/end-permian-extinction/
##CO_2## levels rose enormously: ocean and ambient surface temperatures soared. Temperatures would have been high enough to kill off almost all land and marine plants, algae, and phytoplankton. 95% percent of marine species died off.

No asteroid collisions to blame.

But were there 10.0 earthquakes during the Permian extinction?
 
  • #45
I do not know. Paging @Ophiolite he may know definitively one way or the other.
 
  • #46
jim mcnamara said:
...definitively...
How old is he? :eek:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Ibix, jim mcnamara, FactChecker and 1 other person
  • #47
jim mcnamara said:
I do not know. Paging @Ophiolite he may know definitively one way or the other.
I'm not current on the consensus of probable cause of the Permian extinction. I lean to environmental changes related to continental distribution, shallow water extent, ocean currents, atmospheric composition (not just CO2) etc. , but not a bolide impact. However, it is an interesting question - I'll see what I can turn up.

DaveC426913 said:
How old is he? :eek:
I do recall giving CPR, unsuccessfully, to the last trilobite.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Likes davenn, DaveC426913, jim mcnamara and 3 others
  • #48
Ophiolite said:
I do recall giving CPR, unsuccessfully, to the last trilobite.

:frown:
 
  • #49
AndromedaRXJ said:
But were there 10.0 earthquakes during the Permian extinction?
Not that I have every read about or was taught about at university
Why do you think that there may have been ?
 
  • #50
I think that the question reflects a little misunderstanding. For an M10 earthquake on a slip strike fault to happen, the fault would have extend almost all the way around the planet. No such fault is known to exist.

From
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-megaq...s_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
No, earthquakes of magnitude 10 or larger cannot happen. The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the length of the fault on which it occurs. That is, the longer the fault, the larger the earthquake. A fault is a break in the rocks that make up the Earth's crust, along which rocks on either side have moved past each other. No fault long enough to generate a magnitude 10 earthquake is known to exist, and if it did, it would extend around most of the planet.

The largest earthquake ever recorded was a magnitude 9.5 on May 22, 1960 in Chile on a fault that is almost 1,000 miles long…a “megaquake” in its own right.
For a subduction fault zone the size would be smaller because the energy released (the M10 thing) is proportional to the surface where the faulting plates overlap. It still would be really unlikely.

The scale is a logarithmic one, so each magnitude step is 10 times greter than the previous one. So an M11 would require a larger Earth than we have.
 
  • Informative
Likes Klystron
  • #51
jim mcnamara said:
I think that the question reflects a little misunderstanding. For an M10 earthquake on a slip strike fault to happen, the fault would have extend almost all the way around the planet. No such fault is known to exist.

From
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-megaq...s_science_products=0#qt-news_science_productsFor a subduction fault zone the size would be smaller because the energy released (the M10 thing) is proportional to the surface where the faulting plates overlap. It still would be really unlikely.

The scale is a logarithmic one, so each magnitude step is 10 times greter than the previous one. So an M11 would require a larger Earth than we have.

Yes, exactly, as I was trying to get across to readers way back in post #19 :smile: Dave
 
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913
  • #52
Well, @davenn, I'm not sure our effort will work. We can try. But. Were are fighting:

This is about the San Andreas fault system:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3488056/ How many people have read the USGS site versus how many have seen movies like the above?
 
  • #53
jim mcnamara said:
I'm not sure our effort will work. We can try. But. Were are fighting:

This is about the San Andreas fault system:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3488056/

How many people have read the USGS site versus how many have seen movies like the above?

uh huh, it's an uphill battle to get the truth out to the masses :smile:

Dave
 
  • #56
davenn said:
yes, as stated in previous posts :smile:
Sorry didn't look at any previous quotes LOL 😉 :oldbiggrin: Too manyo0)
 
  • #57
Physics4Eva said:
Sorry didn't look at any previous quotes LOL 😉 :oldbiggrin: Too manyo0)
Ahhh ... something for you to get used to doing :smile:

welcome to PF Dave
 

Similar threads

M 7.4 - 2025 Drake Passage Earthquake - unusual
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
M7.5 Earthquake, near Anamizu, W Japan
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Mount Rainier - earthquake swarm July 2025
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
416
Low magnitude earthquakes in Scotland, Highlands and Inner Hebrides
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
M 5.9 - 37 km WNW of Linxia Chengguanzhen, China
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (19 years ago)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Mag 2.7 earthquake in Cornwall, 19 Nov 2023
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mt St Helens - More than 400 earthquakes, yet no imminent eruption
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mag 7.0 Earthquake - Acapulco, Mexico
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
(Unprecedented?) Cluster of earthquakes in Greek islands
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K