New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe