Possible Tsunami Model for Recent 7.1 Aftershock and Delayed Effect at Same Site

  • Thread starter Thread starter cph
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Model
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the recent 7.1 magnitude earthquake on April 7, located at 38.253°N, 141.640°E, and its potential relationship to a delayed tsunami effect. Participants propose that the tsunami may have resulted from a "saucer sloshing effect," where the ocean floor's movement causes water to first move towards the ocean and then back towards the shore, creating a delay. Hydrodynamic simulations are suggested as a method to better understand tsunami generation without relying on ocean volume changes or impulse effects. The conversation emphasizes the need for detailed models of the subocean crust to predict seismic events accurately.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of seismic activity and earthquake magnitudes
  • Familiarity with tsunami formation mechanisms
  • Knowledge of hydrodynamic simulations in geophysical contexts
  • Basic comprehension of subduction zone geology
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Hydrodynamic simulations for tsunami modeling"
  • Explore "Subduction zone earthquake prediction techniques"
  • Study "Tsunami generation mechanisms and effects"
  • Investigate "Seismicity profiles and their implications for earthquake forecasting"
USEFUL FOR

Seismologists, oceanographers, disaster response planners, and researchers interested in earthquake and tsunami interactions will benefit from this discussion.

cph
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Might the recent 7.1 ‘aftershock’ at same site one month later, actually be a for shock of another pending earthquake?

Also might the delayed tsunami effect have been due to saucer sloshing effect? That is, if the sea bottom (saucer) is shaken, then water first sloshes towards the more open oceanic side, and then secondarily sloshes back to landslide; hence accounting for the delay? Might hydrodynamic simulations be of help? Hence would neither an ocean volume changing effect, nor an impulse effect be necessitated for this tsunami generation?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
cph said:
Might the recent 7.1 ‘aftershock’ at same site one month later, actually be a for shock of another pending earthquake?

Also might the delayed tsunami effect have been due to saucer sloshing effect? That is, if the sea bottom (saucer) is shaken, then water first sloshes towards the more open oceanic side, and then secondarily sloshes back to landslide; hence accounting for the delay? Might hydrodynamic simulations be of help? Hence would neither an ocean volume changing effect, nor an impulse effect be necessitated for this tsunami generation?
We don't have sufficiently detailed models of the subocean crust to predict earthquakes, nor their magnitude, location, or orientation. All the details come after the fact.

The 7.1 mag earthquake (38.253°N, 141.640°E, depth = 49 km (30.4 miles)) of April 7 was in the vicinity, but not the same location as the mag 9 earthquake (38.322°N, 142.369°E, epicenter depth = 32 km (19.9 miles)) of March 11.

Look for the 5 pointed star (it's orange, but should be yellow) in:
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2011/eq_110407_c0002ksa/neic_c0002ksa_h.html

Look at the Seismicity profile and see the importance of location, orientation and depth.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0001xgp/neic_c0001xgp_c.php
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/subduction_zone/usc0001xgp/

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2011/eq_110311_c0001xgp/neic_c0001xgp_h.html


One can do research here
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu.shtml

http://www.jma.go.jp/en/tsunami/observation_04_20110311181349.html

http://itic.ioc-unesco.org/

http://books.google.com/books?id=kR...ing development of benchmarked models&f=false
 
Last edited by a moderator: