yeah, i can believe how MAGA doesn't understand the orders of magnitude thing would be the problem, even after their post-google richter search.
wharton biz's pride specialized in adding the same number together. - weatherman

----------------

I was going to let the matter drop but since you won't let it go,

1) Aussi was right, I used "Power" when the correct term should have been size. I went back to look at Aussi linked Omni Earthquake calculator, where it says this,

Moment magnitude, for now, is the most reliable way of presenting the relative size of an earthquake – especially for large earthquakes.

SO, "size" the correct term, not power.

here is your post that I initially commented on.

weatherman replies on Earthquake!

how would like to be the sycophant science advisor explaining to don why the 4.8 earthquake is 10000X smaller than 9.2 ?
'you're fired !' - weatherman

I stand by my math when I said, "10,000 is wrong and a 9.2 quake is actually over 25,118 times more powerful than a 4.8".

I should have stated it as "10,000 is wrong and a 9.2 quake is actually 25,118 times the size of a 4.8"

In conclusion, Aussi was right about power, I am right about relative size, the only thing wrong is your initial assertion of 9.2 being only 10,000 times larger than a 4.8. You have no basis to be taking a victory lap this morning about understanding logarithms.

about the relative size of 4.8 vs 9.2 with the larger being