That raises an interesting question. Often tsunamis are caused by sea bottom landslides. Is there anything in the seismic signature that might make it possible to say that the evens was a landslide rather than a fault slip?jedishrfu said:
Counter question: can a landslide occur if the depth is significantly under sea level? Or is it the nature of the various faults which determine which of it can happen? Or both of it?anorlunda said:
A tsunami warning was issued, but has since been cancelled.jedishrfu said:
The same can happen completely under water. If an earthquake makes one side of the fault drop for, say 10 meters within seconds, then imagine what will happen to, say 1000 meters of water above it? The 2004 tsunami was such an example:hutchphd said:
I guess I am caught in a semantic trap of my own making. If the Earth upon which I stand were to subside suddenly by 10 meters I would not call it a landslide. The physics is clear for an underwater subsidence. Semantics.fresh_42 said:
The choice of words is personal. But this video from Geoscience Australia depicts what we're talking about.hutchphd said:
A landslide is a mass of Earth moving under gravity, and the displacement of Earth (acting under the body force, mg) imparts momentum to the water it displaces. The momentum is transmitted through water and when it comes to a boundary (e.g., land along the coast) the pressure wave is carried onto the land.hutchphd said:
M 8.1 - Kermadec Islands, New ZealandBaluncore said:
no, it's not odd nor unusual. both either stuff sliding into the ocean or an underwater slide ... you can get tsunamis from eitherhutchphd said:
Astronuc said:
I've noticed that. I was wondering about increased activity between Tonga and Fiji, and it seems three quakes of Mag 4+ in the last 24 hours. It's been relatively quiet there until yesterday. Let's see if activity picks up.davenn said:
Some activity has picked up in the Tonga-Fiji region, includingAstronuc said:
I noticed that as well.davenn said:
Astronuc said:
Yup, the aftershocks continue for both sitesAstronuc said:
The location of an earthquake is important because it can give clues about the tectonic plates involved and the potential for future seismic activity in the area. In this case, the earthquake occurred near Gisborne, New Zealand, which is located on the boundary of the Pacific and Australian plates.
This earthquake had a magnitude of 7.3, which is considered a major earthquake. The magnitude scale measures the energy released by an earthquake, with each whole number increase representing a tenfold increase in energy.
Yes, this earthquake was felt by people in the surrounding area. According to reports, it was felt as far away as Auckland, which is about 500 km from the epicenter. The intensity of shaking may have varied depending on the distance from the epicenter and the local geology.
As of now, there have been no reports of major damage or injuries caused by this earthquake. However, it is still important for authorities to assess the situation and for individuals to take precautions, as aftershocks and other hazards may occur.
According to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, there is no current risk of a tsunami following this earthquake. However, it is always important to stay updated on any potential warnings or advisories from local authorities in case of any changes.
