At this point I just assume no one knows anything. (Including myself...) This is especially important when you're working between fields - the same word can mean different things to different people.
...Fault slip rate = (1) average slip rate recorded by geology, (2) modeled average slip rate from GPS, (3) how fast the fault slips in an earthquake. But somehow, NOT (4) the rate the fault is slipping right now (probably zero)...
...Aseismic = (1) has not generated recorded seismicity, or (2) cannot generate earthquakes. These are very different things!...
...Fault coupling = the rate a fault is slipping right now divided by the how quickly the blocks on either side are moving relative to each other. This is only meaningful if you assume that the fault is taking up all of that movement, which is often a weird thing to assume.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The depth of the #earthquake is still poorly constrained. GFZ puts it shallow, above the plate interface, dip 11°. USGS puts it deeper, within the slab, dip 26° and non-double-couple. Historical events of this scale in the region are old so not much help - 1929, 1933, 1964. 2/4
Given the curvature of the #subductionzone, it would certainly be reasonable to have some intra-slab deformation, and fracturing could be complex, leading to non-double-couple. The closest large event (1964) was apparently quite deep (125 km). 3/4