Reanalysis Reveals Tsunami-Spawning Quake to Be Second Largest Known

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The death toll from Monday's 8.7 on the Richter scale earthquake near Indonesia reached 1,000 on Wednesday as additional tremors measuring up to 6.4 continued to shake the region, demonstrating the uncertainty and unpredictability of geologic activity. Indeed, scientists are still uncovering details about the devastating earthquake that triggered the deadly tsunami in the vicinity in December. A new analysis published today in the journal Nature indicates that it released more than twice as much energy as previously believed. If the results are confirmed, it would make that earthquake the second largest on record, behind only a 1960 event in Chile.

Seth Stein and Emile A. Okal of Northwestern University analyzed the low-frequency seismological signal that the December 26, 2004, Sumatra-Andaman quake generated. They determined that it was 2.5 times stronger than initial estimates and measured 9.3 on the Richter scale. Scientists based the initial 9.0 magnitude estimate on surface waves. The authors posit that slow slip between the plates that was not detectable in the surface waves accounts for their larger measurement. A second analysis published in the same issue of Nature indicates that the December earthquake also involved a longer section of the fault than previously believed. Sidao Ni of the University of Science and Technology of China and colleagues determined that the quake resulted in a rupture length of 1,200 kilometers--about twice as long as had been inferred from analyses performed soon after the event.

Scientists will continue to try to piece together just how and why the earth moves below the Bay of Bengal region. Kerry Sieh of the California Institute of Technology notes in an accompanying commentary that "over the next year or two, figuring out what happened will be a showcase both of what modern observations and analysis can do and of the multidisciplinary nature of modern earthquake science."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe