Earthquake in Morocco

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/magnitude-7-earthquake-strikes-morocco-gfz-2023-09-08/
Magnitude 6.8

[Mike88]

The epicenter was near Marrakesh.

https://twitter.com/jalaloni/status/1700287318207115643

The earthquake was also felt with intensity in the southern regions of Portugal and Spain.

[Harlow]

Nearly 300 people already reported dead. Awful.

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/1700339100358742383?s=20

[Meclazine for Israel]

600 and counting...

https://edition.cnn.com/

[CumbrianLefty]

A reminder of how powerless we are to counter nature at full blast.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Not the most expected place for an earthquake, related to Atlas tectonics (collission of Africa with Eurasia). But earthquakes like this are very rare in Morocco. It's probably the heaviest one on record from what i've heard and it seems to have a low frequency / interval period (in this part of Morocco), so this is just bad luck. Earthquakes in northern Morocco are somewhat more common. The previous highest recorded in this area was a M5.8 in 1960, one that was also very deadly

[TheTide]

More than 820 now. Quite obviously it's going to run well into four figures.

[SnowLabrador]

Jesus Christ, we've had a lot of earthquakes this year. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And they'll only get more frequent.

[Epaminondas]

Just wondering, is Moscow due an earthquake any year now?

[Sol]

Jesus Christ, we've had a lot of earthquakes this year. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And they'll only get more frequent.

Why?

[SnowLabrador]

Jesus Christ, we've had a lot of earthquakes this year. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And they'll only get more frequent.

Why?

Climate change.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Jesus Christ, we've had a lot of earthquakes this year. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And they'll only get more frequent.

Why?

Climate change.

1. Climate change and earthquakes are not linked to each other, there's no relationship between the two, period.

2. Earthquake activity is not higher than average. We haven't had a M8 earthquake this year, which has only happened on 6 occassions this century (three of them still producing a M7.9). In fact given last year also didn't produce a M8+, we might be heading towards a second year in a row without a M8.

The earthquakes between M7 and M7.9 seem to be though above average for now, but in other categories it seems to be completely normal/average.

3. It seems to be in particular a more deadly year for earthquake due to the Turkey-Syria event, the Afghanistan event and now this event. But that's just because those earthquakes hit in less developed areas and circumstances make it more damaging than they otherwise should be.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Just wondering, is Moscow due an earthquake any year now?

Western Russia is not near any tectonic faults or settings, its probably among the safest areas with regards to earthquakes and volcanoes, similarly to Scandinavia. Both are also cratons. (sturdy crust that exist for a long time, longer than any other crust).

Russia does have some earthquake danger because of it being a big country, but most is closer to central Asia, caucascus and in particular the Russian Far East (Kamchatka) which has the most earthquake risk but of course is nowhere close to where most actual Russians live.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

A reminder of how powerless we are to counter nature at full blast.

We aren't, it's just expensive. The longer we fail to solve climate change, the more earthquake-resistant buildings (among a whole host of other things) will become necessary. No prizes for guessing which will cost more in the long term.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

A reminder of how powerless we are to counter nature at full blast.

We aren't, it's just expensive. The longer we fail to solve climate change, the more earthquake-resistant buildings (among a whole host of other things) will become necessary. No prizes for guessing which will cost more in the long term.

Earthquakes and climate change are not related to each other, not even in the slightest.

[ꙮ]

Jesus Christ, we've had a lot of earthquakes this year. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And they'll only get more frequent.

Why?

Climate change.

Is this proof that you're trolling? How in the hell would the atmosphere warming cause earthquakes?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Jesus Christ, we've had a lot of earthquakes this year. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And they'll only get more frequent.

Why?

Climate change.

1. Climate change and earthquakes are not linked to each other, there's no relationship between the two, period.

2. Earthquake activity is not higher than average. We haven't had a M8 earthquake this year, which has only happened on 6 occassions this century (three of them still producing a M7.9). In fact given last year also didn't produce a M8+, we might be heading towards a second year in a row without a M8.

The earthquakes between M7 and M7.9 seem to be though above average for now, but in other categories it seems to be completely normal/average.

3. It seems to be in particular a more deadly year for earthquake due to the Turkey-Syria event, the Afghanistan event and now this event. But that's just because those earthquakes hit in less developed areas and circumstances make it more damaging than they otherwise should be.

There were earthquakes in 1988 in Soviet Armenia and in 1989 in California. Guess which one had a higher death toll...

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Jesus Christ, we've had a lot of earthquakes this year. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And they'll only get more frequent.

Why?

Climate change.

1. Climate change and earthquakes are not linked to each other, there's no relationship between the two, period.

2. Earthquake activity is not higher than average. We haven't had a M8 earthquake this year, which has only happened on 6 occassions this century (three of them still producing a M7.9). In fact given last year also didn't produce a M8+, we might be heading towards a second year in a row without a M8.

The earthquakes between M7 and M7.9 seem to be though above average for now, but in other categories it seems to be completely normal/average.

3. It seems to be in particular a more deadly year for earthquake due to the Turkey-Syria event, the Afghanistan event and now this event. But that's just because those earthquakes hit in less developed areas and circumstances make it more damaging than they otherwise should be.

There were earthquakes in 1988 in Soviet Armenia and in 1989 in California. Guess which one had a higher death toll...

Not the same earthquake as well. The earthquake in Armenia was at low depth and had a higher intensity on the Mercalli scale. The earthquake also took longer, i don't like comparing two different type of earthquakes because they're not the same. Or in this case they aren't, it's more complex than that.

Of course i'm not going to deny that HDI standards being higher in California and not in Armenia, and building standards being better (also because the risk of an earthquake of California was considered higher than in Armenia at the time) of course has saved lives in California and could have in Armenia. California overall - in particular also being one of the wealthiest regions in an already wealth country - has high living standards and them being experienced with earthquakes means casualties will be lower if the same event took place there. I am not sure about population density because when comparing you also have to take that in factor.

But the event in Armenia in 1988 was objectively more intense than the event in California in 1989.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Jesus Christ, we've had a lot of earthquakes this year. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And they'll only get more frequent.

Why?

Climate change.

1. Climate change and earthquakes are not linked to each other, there's no relationship between the two, period.

2. Earthquake activity is not higher than average. We haven't had a M8 earthquake this year, which has only happened on 6 occassions this century (three of them still producing a M7.9). In fact given last year also didn't produce a M8+, we might be heading towards a second year in a row without a M8.

The earthquakes between M7 and M7.9 seem to be though above average for now, but in other categories it seems to be completely normal/average.

3. It seems to be in particular a more deadly year for earthquake due to the Turkey-Syria event, the Afghanistan event and now this event. But that's just because those earthquakes hit in less developed areas and circumstances make it more damaging than they otherwise should be.

There were earthquakes in 1988 in Soviet Armenia and in 1989 in California. Guess which one had a higher death toll...

Not the same earthquake as well. The earthquake in Armenia was at low depth and had a higher intensity on the Mercalli scale. The earthquake also took longer, i don't like comparing two different type of earthquakes because they're not the same. Or in this case they aren't, it's more complex than that.

Of course i'm not going to deny that HDI standards being higher in California and not in Armenia, and building standards being better (also because the risk of an earthquake of California was considered higher than in Armenia at the time) of course has saved lives in California and could have in Armenia. California overall - in particular also being one of the wealthiest regions in an already wealth country - has high living standards and them being experienced with earthquakes means casualties will be lower if the same event took place there. I am not sure about population density because when comparing you also have to take that in factor.

But the event in Armenia in 1988 was objectively more intense than the event in California in 1989.

Fair enough, I defer to your knowledge on this.

[CumbrianLefty]

When (and I suppose it is when) the big one finally kicks off on the San Andreas Fault, there is going to be significant destruction and loss of life regardless of how well constructed everything is.

That ties into my point above.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

When (and I suppose it is when) the big one finally kicks off on the San Andreas Fault, there is going to be significant destruction and loss of life regardless of how well constructed everything is.

That ties into my point above.

True but preparation and how well things constructed still does help with reducing loss of life and destruction to some extent.

The northern section last ruptured in 1906 and the middle section (and hypothesized a part of the southern section) in 1857. The last big one on the Southern Section to have been in 1680 which is quite a whiler ago.

A 2008 paper, studying past earthquakes along the Pacific coastal zone, found a correlation in time between seismic events on the northern San Andreas Fault and the southern part of the Cascadia subduction zone (which stretches from Vancouver Island to northern California). Scientists believe quakes on the Cascadia subduction zone may have triggered most of the major quakes on the northern San Andreas within the past 3,000 years. The evidence also shows the rupture direction going from north to south in each of these time-correlated events. However the 1906 San Francisco earthquake seems to have been the exception to this correlation because the plate movement was mostly from south to north and it was not preceded by a major quake in the Cascadia zone.

Interestingly i found this about the northern section. Given the northern one relatively recently slipped, i think the next one there might be after the next Cascadia event (because that could still take some time, possibly). Though it is possible for it to happen sooner than one thinks or during our lifetimes, i believe it's a bit more likely to happen in the 22th century, but it's not impossible for it to happen soon and with a decent chance of it happening this century.

For the southern section of the San Andreas fault, i don't know the expected interval periods. But that seems to be most at risk, let's hope the 1857 did cause some stress relief, but that's also already about 170 years ago.

For the Cascadia one it's believed to have been loosely had an interval period of 500 years, while the last one was in 1700. However it seems like there is a high variance on that interval (anything from 300 to 700-800 years) or the record can just be not fully known and updated which causes some gaps, which is also a possibility. Though as a subduction zone, that's a different type of earthquake that easily could be a M8.5+ with potential for a M9 or higher.