What is Digg?41 Comments
- XxN3RDC0R3xX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Aren't Google Earth's images a year or two old ?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9There is actually alot of problems with the richter scale. A 7.7 can be anyware from devistating to barely noticed.. depending on the geology of the soil.. the depth and type of earthquake. COmpaing it to the san fran quake is meaning less if the two places dont share the same geology and if the quake wasnt at the same depth.
the Mercalli Scale on the other hand uses a "destruction scale" to judge an earthquake..like a 4 means dishes fall off shelves and such.. a 6 means bricks are coming off your house.. it is a much better scale but people are resistant to any change. Like us americans and the metric system.. doesnt really matter until you miss mars with a 200 million dollar spaceship. - xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/region/Asia.php
- jofer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Normally, we have grammar nazti's around here... I'm going to be a geology nazti.
You're mostly correct in what you say, but you're misunderstanding what the scales are used for. They don't measure the same thing, and aren't intended to.
To begin with, the Richter scale is no longer used, and the values you're reading aren't on the Richter scale, they're moment magnitude (Mw).
It's not that one scale is better than the other, they simply measure different things. Intensity is what you feel at a particular point, magnitue is how much energy is released by the quake. The Mercalli scale measures intensity. To measure an earthquake on the Mercalli scale, you have to go there, look at the damage, ask people what they felt, and compile the data and map it out. The reason that the maximum intensity of this quake isn't reported is simply because we can't measure it yet. It can be estimated, both from initial reports of damage and from the magnitude, depth, and location of the quake, but you don't know the actual maximum intensity until some time after the earthquake.
Next off, a Mw 7.7 earthquake is _big_ if you're near the epicenter, it's going to cause damage, unless you happen to be at sea. You're quite correct in saying that maximum intensity varies a large amount depending on what's underfoot, but it doesn't vary _that_ much. You're also correct in saying that that earthquake was barely noticeable. For most of the people reading this, it was an intensity 0 earthquake on the Mercalli scale. Which brings us to the next reason why you don't see intensity values reported much.
Intensity is what you feel at a particular location. It varies with location. Moment magnitude is proportional to the amount of energy released. It doesn't matter where you are, the earthquake has the same magnitude.
Moment magnitude reflects the actual size of the earthquake, intensity does not.
How are we supposed to measure an earthquake on the Mercalli scale if it happens in the ocean? You simply cannot. The scale is based on damage to structures and observations make by people in the area.
At any rate, sorry for the long lecture, you've got the basic point, but there are damn good reasons why you see magnitude values reported. Actually, the Mercalli scale is the older system. Earthquakes used to be reported on the Mercalli scale before seismologists had a way of measuring magnitude of an earthquake.
Fun tidbits, just for the heck of it... The magnitude of an earthquake has no theoritical limits on either end. Negative magnitude earthquakes regularly occur and have been dectected (with difficulty). Earthquakes over magnitude 10 don't occur, but that has to do with the size of actual faults. A magnitude 1 earthquake releases around 30 times as much energy as a magnitude 2 earthquake, and a magnitude 3 earthquakes releases 900 times the energy of a magnitude 1 earthquake. The scale is proportional to the logartihm of the energy released. The brittle portion of the Earth's crust simply isn't strong enough to produce an earthquake over Mw 10.
You were also correct to say that the Richter scale has problems (that's why it isn't used). It's defined on a particular type of seismometer, and is only valid for southern California. Anywhere else, it doesn't adequately measure magnitude.
I apologize to anyone who actually read through that! - finnif, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8> Oh c'mon thats just poor taste
Right... and this is the internet. You expected something else? - Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Was that supposed to be a joke?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4while you cant count on an update.. they do update it all the time and quickly..
they did katrina damage right away..
they got the maxium cover in the desert (i am sure maxim paid for the update)
on march 26 google released a slew of updates including meter resolution of vegas.
Iraq was updated often.... dont think it is anymore due to complaints.
Anyway if it is bad enough to photo with a sat.. then it will probably make it's way to google earth.
you can also get quake and volcano plugins that give you info overlays on google earth. No need to neg digg the guy. - DEFSMAC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5probably. but give it another say 5 years and i wouldn't be surprised if google had its own fleet of 1 meter resolution imagining satellites to augment google earth.
- crazyfan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Thats not him, its a spammer using a username that looks like his.
The spammer is kevinroze
The real Kevin Rose, owner of digg.com is kevinrose - ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3...just wait :P
- hafetysazard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When I walked past my dad while he was on the computer this morning, I noticed a large circle on xearth. I was wondering what it was. Now I know. :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Are the Russian brides ok?
- rolypolyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.russianairfields.com/airfield/Tilichiki.htm -- from Soviet Air Base Survey -- has a good map inset showing where in Asia the earthquake was.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They keep saying California needs to watch out but the earthquakes are happening everywhere but here...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I saw Norris first and read it as chuck...
- inferno10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And this is precisely why I should proofread my comments before posting
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1do to an earthquake, the internet is down in Tilichiki russia along with the electicity, water, a school and an airport.
by comparison San Francisco had huge quake in 1906. This was before the internet and as such noone lost a connection. - MrGeneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is the location of the largest town in the area, quake was 1000km to the north.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=53.0167,158.6500&ll=53.014783,158.642578&spn=19.066807,72.861328&om=1 - leqin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My friends over in Russia tell me that a total of 38 people were injured and 7 of them needed hospitalisation. Approximatly 200 people were left homeless after the quake which destroyed 3 villages in the autonomous district. There have also been several aftershocks with one that measured 5.2 and more are expected in coming days seeing as the area is directly on a tectonic plate boundry.
For those who don't know that much about Russia - this happened in the region which was the main area used under the soviet regime for forced labour concentration camps that collected metals such as gold and also uranium for the soviet nuclear effort. Having spent quite some time in the region I can tell you it is one of the most unique and beautiful places I have ever visited - the Russians themselves call it the Dark Side of the Moon because light levels for the majority of the year are so low everything appears purple. It is also one of the most ghastly places I have ever been to because of the number of unburied human remains you can happen upon in more or less every valley. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am not misunderstand what they are used for.. i just wish the media would report it in a way that people most associate it with. and that is the damage it causes. I dont think anyone cares how big a quake is if it doesnt cause any damage. well except geologist. But this is a new article not a geology magazine.
but thanks for the clarification on the rest. - xodex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2while it did seem like a bad joke, I'm sure if one would catelog some cities of google earth and then make comparison shots 1-2years later it would show the after effect, even if too small to see.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Are the allofmp3 servers OK ?
- erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4What does poop have to do with an earthquake? People have lost their homes, and all you have to say is "poop?"
- davidv, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10Oh c'mon thats just poor taste, its a freakin massive earthquake not an excuse for retarded attempts at jokes!
- Madh2orat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3He's just telling us what they did when the earthquake hit.
- baudbwoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1does anyone know where I can find that website that talks about tech-nol-ogy. I think it was called dig...dug, can-u-dig-it or doug, something like that, please help, I seem to be lost here in WHO GIVES A FUK I SEE THIS STUFF IN THE NEWS...land.
- steviefungi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1They had it coming.
- superal1394, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1they're gonna pull a 24 in a few years and have imagery updated every 5 seconds. I predicted it first.
- inferno10, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1See folks, this is precisely why we should not let Chick Norris loose in Europe.
- MelvinSchlubman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1What?! Fumble? Where?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4yay props for using a canadian source
- reboare, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5woah nelly!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3We missed our target, sorry Russians, our bad... we were aiming for Iran.
- CRASSPUNXTEXHTV, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1roze not rose
lol it is funny - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1neg digg this... need a del key when i screws up and double posts.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2@davidv
He said sorry... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -25/+11In soviet Russia ground shakes you!
Sorry ;P - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2neg me
- mrlayance2, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5Time to check Google Earth.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1poop!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is