3/19/2012 3:33:00 AM Observed high amplitude tsunami 0.

5-20 km away from the northern Sumatra coast during 2004 Sumatra earthquake
1.What is/are the main point/s of this article? The main points discussed are the physical effects of a tsunami at previously thought safe offshore depths. The author points out new evidence that a tsunami can pose a serious threat even when several kilometres from the coastline at water depths less than or around 40m.

2.What kind of evidence does/do the author/s use to support those points? (such as graphs, in-text references etc.) The author uses various kinds of data to support his points. One of then being the personal testimonies of the locals living in the surrounding effected areas. Especially the fishermen who were at sea the time the earthquake struck. As the fishermen had no GPS or other device to establish their location, the author used the kind of fish they were catching to indicate water depths and location. Estimations for the source of the tsunami were calculated from tide gauges on the Indian Ocean as well as satellites recording sea surface heights. These were graphically represented in satellite snapshots and maritime maps. Also computer-designed models simulating the earthquake and tsunami were designed using four main mathematical wave equations. These were also shown graphically in plotted graphs as well as algebraically in numerical equations.

3. Do you think the conclusion/s is/are justified? Yes or no and WHY? I believe the conclusions are justified as the author has used a variety of unbiased data sources in which to base his conclusion. The author has utilised the eyewitness accounts of various fishermen from different geographic regions who experienced the disasters. This in itself bears good weight towards the argument however the combined support of computer and mathematical simulations further bolster the authors conclusions. However there is seen some discrepancies between the fishermens accounts and computer simulations within the arrival times of the tsunami and wave amplitude. The author suggests this could be due to secondary faults closer to shore also creating the

source. This discrepancy is not opposed to the authors main points it only highlights the need for further study into secondary faults. 4. How is this article relevant to your topic? (Your reasons for choosing it) This article is relevant to my topic Geohazards as it discusses the proximal impacts of the 2004 Sumatra earthquakes and tsunamis. The article particularly discusses the effect the tsunami had on the local fishermen who were eyewitnesses of the event and shares their testimony from that morning. 5. How do you know you can trust this article? I can trust this article for various reasons, one being compiled by professional experts in the related field of earth science. This shows that professionals who have internationally recognised education within the field of earth science have worked together to contribute to the article. This gives me the impression of an unbiased viewpoint, as professionals from three different countries were involved. Another reason is the collection of data from interviews taken not long after the disaster struck. This gives a more accurate account from individual testimonies because as time progresses human memory degenerates. The recent year of publication in 2009 gives credit to the article from a technological standpoint as advances in data collection and evaluation wouldnt have greatly differed from today.

Tsunamis as geomorphic crises: Lessons from the December 26, 2004 tsunami in Lhok Nga, West Banda Aceh (Sumatra Indonesia)
1. What is/are the main point/s of this article? The main points in this article discuss the geological impacts from the 2004 Sumatra tsunami. The authors particularly describe the erosion rates of the coastal and surrounding effected landscapes and discuss the relationship between surrounding topography and magnitude of damage. 2. What kind of evidence does/do the author/s use to support those points? (such as graphs, in-text references etc.) The authors used a wide range of sources of data to support main points. These were gathered from eyewitness accounts, photographs, videos and manual surveying using laser levels post tsunami. Seen in the article were histograms comparing coastal retreat and tsunami height, bivariate plots showing tsunami boulder deposits, topographical maps highlighting deposition and direction of tsunami as well as aerial and land photographs showing the effected landscape pre/post tsunami. 3. Do you think the conclusion/s is/are justified? Yes or no and WHY? I think the authors conclusions regarding the geomorphological change in the surrounding affected landscape are justified. I believe they can be justified because all of the given evidence within the article graphically, numerically and pictorially supports his conclusion. The authors admit however from the comparison of erosion rates and tsunami heights there is a lack of any noticeable relationship. This is clearly stated in the conclusion of the article and doesnt affect the originally stated conclusions. 4. How is this article relevant to your topic? (Your reasons for choosing it) I chose this article because of its relevance towards my topic geohazards, it particularly focuses in on the proximal impacts of the 2004 Sumatra tsunami. The article examines in close detail the geomorphic change in the surrounding landscape showing and describing the landscape before and after the tsunami.

5. How do you know you can trust this article? I know I can trust this article for a number of reasons one of them being the fact that the article has been peer reviewed. This means that a panel of professional experts within the associated fields has critically examined the article and challenged the authors assumptions and conclusions. The authors extensive referencing also helps build confidence, this shows the widespread research and study the author has put into the article.

The Tectonic Framework of the Sumatra Subduction Zone

1. What is/are the main point/s of this article? The main points discussed in this article are related to the tectonic setting of Sumatra. The author explains the tectonic instability of the region creating awareness as to just how volatile the area actually is and showing the different geohazards that exist. 2. What kind of evidence does/do the author/s use to support those points? (such as graphs, in-text references etc.) The author uses a wide range of evidence to support his points these are; topographic maps, tectonic plate maps, seismic maps, in-text references from other academic researchers in the field and vector diagrams showing different plate movements. 3. Do you think the conclusion/s is/are justified? Yes or no and WHY? I believe the conclusions brought forward from the article are justified because of the authors use of supporting evidence. From the various tectonic and seismic activity maps you can see the direct connection between where tectonic plate boundaries exist and seismic activity in that region. This data all supports the conclusion that Sumatra is a geologically active region of the world as well as revealing the sometimes hidden geohazards that exist. 4. How is this article relevant to your topic? (Your reasons for choosing it) The relevance of this article towards my topic geohazards is substantial as it directly addresses the tectonic setting for the Sumatra earthquake and tsunami. The article gives good detailed insight as to where the actual tectonic plates and boundries exist, the velocity in which they are moving and the kinematic relationship between interacting plates. All this data is essential if we are to gain an understanding of the tectonic framework within Sumatra. 5. How do you know you can trust this article? The main reason I can trust this article is because it has been peer reviewed by a board of experts within the related fields. This means that a group of non-stakeholding experts in the related field have scrutinized the accuracy of the article and suggested changes to

improve truthfulness. My knowledge within the field of geology is very minimal in comparison to the vast understanding and experience of academic professionals who dedicate their lives to the field of earth science. The author has comprehensively cited throughout his article this suggests he is widely read and builds his points from creditable academic sources. Also the publisher Annual Reviews reputation is at stake, once a publishers reputation has been tarnished it becomes difficult to regain the respect within academic circles. This suggests that the publisher themselves would only consider an article for publication if it had substantial evidence to support the author.

Five years after the Indian Ocean disaster, the technology is in place, but local preparedness is less advanced
1. What is/are the main point/s of this article? The main points examined in this article bring to light the great importance of tsunami early warning technology to coastal communities. In particular it discusses the lessons learnt from the 2004 Sumatra tsunamis and creates an awareness of the dangers of tsunamis to coastal communities around the world to help prevent or minimise future fatalities. The author also highlights the restrictions of an early warning system and the importance for local education. 2. What kind of evidence does/do the author/s use to support those points? (such as graphs, in-text references etc.)