How an Arizona glaciologist helped tease out effects of Nepal quake

After a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal in April and caused thousands of casualties, a scientist in Arizona decided he wanted to help. 

Niranjan Shrestha/AP/File
Rescue workers remove debris as they search for victims of an earthquake in Bhaktapur near Kathmandu, Nepal, April 26.

The April 25 earthquake in Nepal was devastating: more than 8,500 people died, making it the deadliest disaster in Nepal’s history. But a team of scientists from the University of Arizona published a study in the journal Science Wednesday that suggests the 7.8 magnitude earthquake could have been much worse by triggering numerous landslides. 

After the quake struck Nepal the lead author of the report, Jeffrey Kargel, wanted to use his resources as a senior associate research scientist in the University of Arizona's Department of Hydrology and Water Resources to help Nepal from 8,000 miles away.

“For the first 24 hours after the quake, I was beside myself suffering for my friends and the country of Nepal that I so love,” Dr. Kargel said in a press release. “I thought, what can I do? I’m sitting here in Tucson – how can I help Nepal?”

Using his expertise in satellite imaging and his colleagues in the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS), Kargel realized he could analyze the earthquake’s effect on Himalayan glaciers and potential post-quake landslides.

Kargel and GLIMS scientists from around the world worked with the NASA Applied Sciences Disasters group to analyze satellite images of the region and identify areas of need. And the scientists were surprised at what they found.

“There were a lot of surprises,” Kargel told BBC News. “The nature of the earthquakes’ influence on the landscape, from the largest scales to the smaller scales, was not really as we would have expected.”

Some 4,312 landslides occurred within the six weeks after the quake. While this may sounds like a lot, scientists say its far fewer than what have occurred after quakes of similar magnitude in similar, mountainous regions.

And after analyzing similarities between the 4,312 landslides, Kargel and his team found a pattern that was “unexpected and hadn’t been observed before.” During an earthquake, humans feel shaking because the terrain rises and falls. The majority of documented landslides occurred in places where the ground surface dropped down, instead of areas where the ground surface rose up. 

The scientists also concluded from their research that overall shaking during the Gorkha earthquake was minimal compared to other earthquakes of similar magnitude, thus contributing to less landslides. 

“All kinds of Earth processes can cause a landslide,” said Kargel. “The Gorkha earthquake observations add to our understanding of landslides around the world.” 

But Kargel notes that the lack of landslides shouldn’t undermine the gravity of the earthquake’s impact on the South Asian country. 

“It was a really bad earthquake – over 9,000 fatalities in four countries,” he said in the press release. “As horrific as this was, the situation could have been far worse for an earthquake of this magnitude.”

And even after a natural disaster that caused thousands of casualties, Kargel is inspired by the international collaboration between scientists immediately after the quake. 

The research was possible because of contributions from scientists around the world who volunteered their time and worked long-hours after the quake, analyzing data images of satellite data and mapping future hazards. Some 58 other scientists from over 35 institutions throughout 12 countries worked alongside Kargel to develop this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.