These are the latest papers that deal with earthquakes, tsunami, archaeoseismology, and active tectonics. Quite a number of studies from the Americas this time. Enjoy reading and let me know in case I’ve missed something. Also: If you’d like to write a post about your research, a new paper, a good tectonics field trip or the like, please get in touch!
moreThese are the latest papers that I came across last month. This time we have a number of studies on strong historical earthquakes and their geological (and archaeological) record, classical paleoseismology that sometimes worked, sometimes not, tectonic landscapes, and much more. Enjoy reading!
moreQuite a number of articles in this month’s paper list are concerned with what happens or happened offshore in strong earthquakes. But of course there is a also a lot of classical paleoseismology and some new approaches to dating fault slip directly from the fault gouges. Enjoy reading and drop me a note if I have missed something.
moreThis month’s list has everything: classic paleoseismology, tsunami studies, archaeology and historical seismology, lake turbidites from the Alps, deformed soft sediments, folds and faults, tidal notches and geodesy, etc.. Enjoy reading and drop me an email in case I have missed something.
moreHere’s the latest list of papers. Geographically, it’s really diverse this time, from Greenland to San Andreas, S Africa, the Caucasus and back. Also in time dimension – perhaps we have the oldest paleoseismicity in our list today? Enjoy reading and let us know if we’ve missed something.
moreThis is a guest blog by Octavi Gómez-Novell, Universitat de Barcelona, visiting researcher at Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain). Contact: octgomez@ub.edu
Paleoseismic data are punctual and highly localized in defined fault strands, while earthquake surface ruptures cover much larger and complex regions in comparison. This makes the identification of paleoearthquakes in trenches strongly dependent on the slip that those particular events had at each trench site, as well as on the continuity and quality of the stratigraphy for those paleoearthquakes to be dated and well-constrained in time. For this reason, paleoseismologists always seek to increase observations by trenching several sites along fault deformation zones with the premise that more observational data might: 1) complete the paleoearthquake catalogues closer to the real event count that actually occurred, 2) reduce the event age and detection uncertainties and 3) give insight about surface rupture characteristics. While all of these premises are correct and proven successful in several cases, the truth is that in a handful of other cases increasing observations can significantly difficult the correlation of datasets between sites, making such interpretations highly subjective. For instance, in very populated paleoseismic datasets and/or those with large event date uncertainties there will be multiple correlation options; which is the right one? After all, even though based on observations, paleoseismic data are interpretations, hence models that should be treated as such. Thus, can we improve correlation using numerical modelling?
more
Pa·le·o·seis·mic·i·ty [ pālē·ə·sīz·mĭs′ĭ·tē ] noun, plural -ties. Ancient earthquake activity.
Paleoseismicity.org is a page dedicated to scientists and everyone else interested in paleoseismology, archeoseismology, neotectonics, earthquake archeology, earthquake engineering and related topics. Different authors irregularly write about recent papers, field work, problems, conferences or just interesting things that they come across. We intend to provide a platform for discussion and scientific exchange. Interested in joining as an author? Please contact us!
paleoseismicity.org is edited by Christoph Grützner and administrated by Martin Schmidt, Koblenz/Germany
© 2008 - 2024 All rights reserved