There find more are some limitations in the present study. The lack of inundation at the coastlines, coupled with the minimum depth requirement, means that the true free-surface variation at an arbitrary coastal location cannot yet be represented. Fluidity is capable of simulating inundation in a limited region (Funke

et al., 2011) and work is ongoing to link this technology to large-scale simulations. The virtual wave gauges must be contained within the mesh to record the free surface variations at a given location. As we varied coastlines and resolution, wave gauges were moved slightly between simulations to ensure they were not on land. Bondevik et al. (2005) used a similar methodology as the gauges specified there were not within their computational domain. They do not report the true location as the effect of this shift was thought to be small. The largest difference in the present study was less than 1 degree for the 50 km resolution simulation with the coarsest GSSHS coastline. All other simulations had differences of much less than 1 degree. The current model does not include inundation as the wave reaches the coastline. Therefore

www.selleckchem.com/products/BAY-73-4506.html comparisons are made between the estimated run-up height from sedimentary deposits and the maximum wave height in the vicinity of the deposit. The difference between the two estimates will depend on local factors, such as vegetation and small-scale (i.e. unresolved) bathymetric/topographic changes. We aim to include this in future work. Perhaps the most important simplifying assumption within this study is that the Storegga Slide moved as a single rigid block. This a priori   assumption is important because the way in which the original slide moves determines the initial dimensions of the resulting tsunami. Field observations ( Haflidason et al., 2005) suggest that much of the slide mass disintegrated, such that it was not a single rigid block. Moreover, there is evidence that GBA3 slope failure

started in deep water and moved retrogressively upslope ( Masson et al., 2010). This modelling also assumes a priori   that the slide accelerated to a speed of ∼∼35 m/s over 3365 s. The acceleration trajectory of the slide is unknown, although previous modelling suggests that such fast speeds are needed to generate a large far field tsunami. We have based our model on the work of ( Harbitz, 1992). This was later refined in terms of both the slide shape and initiation by Bondevik et al. (2005) but no comparison to Harbitz (1992) was carried out and hence it is difficult to ascertain what effect these modifications had on the model results. Bondevik et al. (2005) do not give an analytical expression for the modified slide and hence it could not be used in this study. In addition, Bondevik et al. (2005) also increased resolution of the mesh from 12.5 km to 2.08 km, possibly confounding any comparison.