Author(s)

Tamaz Chelidze, George Melikadze, Genady Kobzev, Tamar Jimsheladze, Nadezhda Dovgal

M. Nodia Institute of Geophysics, Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia.

The paper is devoted to analysis of hydrogeological, geomagnetic and seismic response to the two great remote geophysical events, 2022 Tonga volcano eruption and 2020-2023 Türkiye earthquakes in Georgia (Caucasus). The geophysical observation system in Georgia, namely, water level stations in the network of deep wells, atmospheric pressure and the geomagnetic sensors of the Dusheti Geophysical Observatory (DGO) as well as seismic data in Garni Observatory (Armenia) respond to the Tonga event by anomalies in the time series. These data show that there are two types of respond: infrasound disturbances in atmospheric pressure and seismic waves in the Earth generated by the eruption. After Tonga eruption January 15 at 04:21 UTC three groups of N-shaped waveforms were registered in the water level corresponding to the global propagation characteristics of the N-shaped waveform of infrasound signals on the barograms generated by eruption at the distance ~15,700 km: they were identified as the Lamb wave, a surface wave package running in the atmosphere with a velocity around ~314 m/s. The paper also presents the WL reactions to three strong EQs that occur in Türkiye 2020-2023, namely Elazığ, Van and Türkiye-Syria EQs. WL in Georgian well network reacts to these events by anomalies of different intensity, which points to the high sensitivity of hydrosphere to remote (several hundred km) strong EQs. The intensity and character of WL reactions depend strongly on the local hydrogeological properties of rocks, surrounding the well.

2022 Tonga Eruption, Türkiye Earthquakes, Hydrogeological, Geomagnetic and Seismic Reactions in Georgia

Chelidze, T. , Melikadze, G. , Kobzev, G. , Jimsheladze, T. and Dovgal, N. (2023) Geophysical Reactions to Remote 2022 Tonga Eruption and to Türkiye Earthquakes in Georgia (Caucasus): Hydrogeology, Geomagnetics and Seismicity. Open Journal of Earthquake Research, 12, 223-237. doi: 10.4236/ojer.2023.124009.