
Why some underwater earthquakes cause tsunamis – and others, just little ripples
In some local areas, such as in Russia's northern Kuril Islands, tsunami waves reached heights of over three metres. However, across the Pacific there was widespread relief in the hours that followed as the feared scenario of large waves striking coastal communities did not materialise. Why was this?
Not all underwater earthquakes result in tsunamis. For a tsunami to be generated, the Earth's crust at the earthquake site must be pushed upwards in a movement known as vertical displacement. This typically occurs during reverse faulting, or its shallow-angled form known as thrust faulting, where one block of the Earth's crust is forced up and over another, along what is called a fault plane.
It is no coincidence that this type of faulting movement occurred at a subduction zone on 'the Pacific ring of fire', where the dense oceanic Pacific plate is being forced beneath the less dense Eurasian continental plate.
These zones are known for generating powerful earthquakes and tsunamis because they are sites of intense compression, which leads to thrust faulting and the sudden vertical movement of the seafloor. Indeed, it was the ring of fire that was also responsible for the two most significant tsunami-generating earthquakes of recent times: the 2004 Indonesian Boxing Day and March 2011 Tohoku earthquakes.
Why did the Indonesian and Japanese earthquakes generate waves over 30 metres high, but the recent magnitude 8.8 earthquake off Kamchatka (one of the strongest ever recorded) didn't? The answer lies in the geology involved in these events.
In the case of the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, the sea floor was measured to have risen by up to five metres within a rupture zone of 750,000 sq km.
For the tsunami that struck Japan in March 2011, estimates indicate the seafloor was thrust upwards by nearly three metres within a rupture zone of 90,000 sq km.
Preliminary data from the recent Kamchatka event has been processed into what geologists call a finite fault model. Rather than representing the earthquake as a single point, these models show where and how the crust ruptured, including the length of that rupture in Earth's crust, its depth and what direction it followed.
The model results show that the two sides of the fault slipped by up to ten metres along a fault plane of 18°, resulting in about three metres of vertical uplift. Think of it like walking ten metres up an 18° slope: you don't rise ten metres into the air, you only rise about three metres, because most of your movement is forward rather than upward.
However, since much of this occurred at depths greater than 20km (over an area of 70,000 sq km) the seabed displacement would probably have been reduced as the overlying rock layers absorbed and diffused the motion before it reached the surface.
For comparison, the associated slippage for the Tohoku and Indonesian events was as shallow as 5km in places.
An added complication
So, while the size of sea floor uplift is key to determining how much energy a tsunami begins with, it is the processes that follow – as the wave travels and interacts with the coastline – that can transform an insignificant tsunami into a devastating wall of water at the shore.
As a tsunami travels across the open ocean it is often barely noticeable – a long, low ripple spread over tens of kilometres. But as it nears land, the front of the wave slows down due to friction with the seabed, while the back continues at speed, causing the wave to rise in height. This effect is strongest in places where the sea floor gets shallow quickly near the coast.
The shape of the coastline is also important. Bays, inlets and estuaries can act like funnels that further amplify the wave as it reaches shore. Crescent City in California is a prime example. Fortunately however, when the wave arrived in Crescent City on July 30 2025, it reached a height of just 1.22 metres – still the highest recorded in the continental US.
So, not every powerful undersea earthquake leads to a devastating tsunami — it depends not just on the magnitude, but on how much the sea floor is lifted and whether that vertical movement reaches the ocean surface.
In the case of the recent Russian quake, although the slip was substantial, much of it occurred at depth, meaning the energy wasn't transferred effectively to the water above. All of this shows that while earthquake size is important, it's the precise characteristics of the rupture that truly decide whether a tsunami becomes destructive or remains largely insignificant.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Matthew Blackett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Watch SpaceX Launch Crew to ISS
SpaceX launched its Dragon capsule carrying astronauts from the US, Japan, and Russia to the ISS, after an initial scrub. Caroline Hyde and Ed Ludlow cover the launch and its technical and geopolitical significance on "Bloomberg Tech." (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Astronauts who missed out last year finally get chance in space
Astronauts sidelined for the past year by Boeing's Starliner trouble blasted off to the International Space Station on Friday, getting a lift from SpaceX. The US-Japanese-Russian crew of four rocketed from Nasa's Kennedy Space Centre. They will replace colleagues who launched to the space station in March as fill-ins for Nasa's two stuck astronauts. Their SpaceX capsule should reach the orbiting lab this weekend and stay for at least six months. Zena Cardman, a biologist and polar explorer who should have launched last year, was ditched along with another Nasa crewmate to make room for Starliner's star-crossed test pilots. The botched Starliner demo forced Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to switch to SpaceX to get back from the space station more than nine months after departing on what should have been a week-long trip. Ensuring their safe return 'meant stepping aside', Ms Cardman said before her launch. 'Every astronaut wants to be in space. None of us want to stay on the ground, but it's not about me,' said Ms Cardman, the flight commander. Even after launch, 'things can change at the last minute, so I'll count myself very fortunate when the hatch opens (to the space station)', she said. Nasa's Mike Fincke – Ms Cardman's co-pilot – was the back-up for Mr Wilmore and Ms Williams on Starliner, making those three still the only ones certified to fly it. Mr Fincke and Japan's Kimiya Yui, former military officers with previous spaceflight experience, were training for Starliner's second astronaut mission. With Starliner grounded until 2026, Nasa switched the two to the latest SpaceX flight. Rounding out the crew is Russia's Oleg Platonov. The former fighter pilot was pulled a few years ago from the Russian Soyuz flight line-up because of an undisclosed health issue that he said has since been resolved. To save money in light of tight budgets, Nasa is looking to increase its space station stays from six months to eight months, a move already adopted by Russia's space agency. SpaceX is close to certifying its Dragon capsules for longer flights, which means the newly launched crew could be up there until April.

Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Soviet Union's secret tsunami
On July 30, one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded struck off the Kamchatka peninsula, in Russia's far east. Within minutes, tsunami warnings were issued in Russia, much of Asia and across the Pacific in Hawaii, New Zealand and California. But this wasn't the first time a huge tsunami had hit Kamchatka. In 1952, an even more powerful earthquake hit the same fault line – but it was kept hidden from the world. Kamchatka is no stranger to seismic activity, with a large earthquake occurring as recently as 2020 (the fourth most powerful anywhere in the world that year). However, only the biggest earthquakes can create large destructive tsunamis and cause Pacific-wide warnings like those experienced on Wednesday. On a plate boundary, where two pieces of the Earth's crust meet, such large earthquakes often occur on consistent timescales known as 'seismic cycles'. In some areas, these cycles are long: on the Cascadia boundary off the Pacific coast of North America, for instance, the last major tsunami-generating earthquake was in 1700. However, the plates move much faster near Kamchatka (around 8 centimetres a year) and the the cycle is much shorter. Large tsunamis were generated from earthquakes in 1737, 1841, 1952 – and now 2025 is a continuation of this cycle. Just after midday on November 5 1952, tsunami waves up to 8 foot (2.4 metres) hit Hawaii. This was an early test for the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, which had recently been established on the islands in response to a 1946 tsunami following an earthquake in Alaska. Earlier that day, seismologists across the world had detected signals from an earthquake pinpointed to the northwest Pacific around Kamchatka. When the wave hit Hawaii, scientists there quickly used the exact time of the wave and the known speed of tsunamis (in deep water, these are similar to a jet plane) to deduce it must have been created by that giant earthquake in the northwest Pacific. But from Kamchatka itself, there was silence. There were no reports of an earthquake or tsunami in the Soviet press. Not a word was written in state newspaper Pravda, which instead focused on preparations for the Great October Revolution anniversary two days later. Days and months passed without any recognition of the tsunami and earthquake. Even an interview with a Russian volcanologist, Alexander Evgenievich Svyatlovsky, was stored as a 'state secret', despite him merely explaining how the tsunami had originated. Such secrecy was common at the height of the cold war, with Chernobyl and other disasters often being underreported by the Soviet authorities. It was only after the release of state archives in the early 2000s that the full picture could be told. The devastation at Severo-Kurilsk The isolated fishing town of Severo-Kurilsk lies on an island just south of the Kamchatka peninsula. According to state archives, 6,000 people lived there in 1952, spread thinly across the coastline. On the morning of November 5, inhabitants were woken by a major earthquake, the strongest anyone there had ever felt. Around 45 minutes later a wave arrived, slowing and steepening as it reached the shore. Soldiers on lookout were able to warn people of the danger, and many fled to high ground. But tsunamis are wave trains with a series of peaks and troughs. They act much like waves you'd experience on a beach – except that these waves stretch thousands of metres into the ocean, hitting the shore not every few seconds but with tens of minutes between each one. Minutes after some residents had returned to their homes, a second, larger wave struck. It rose some 12 metres high – as tall as a three-storey building – and hit the town from behind. A third wave soon followed, washing away much of the town that remained. In all, the tsunami caused 2,336 deaths out of a population of 6,000. The survivors never shared the details for fear of reprisals, and the story remained a state secret. Today, Severo-Kurilsk sits 20 metres above sea level, rebuilt and fortified. Videos from the 2025 tsunami show flooding at the port, but there are no reported fatalities – testament to modern warning systems and urban planning. One problem remains: the repositioning of the town has placed it in the path of deadly mudflows from the nearby volcano Ebeko (only 7km away). For Severo-Kurilsk, tsunamis represent only one of many threats in this corner of the Pacific. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Patrick David Sharrocks receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council, grant number NE/S007458/1.