tsunami
12-30-2004 | 07:22 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 476
Likes: 33
tsunami
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/tsunami.html
the video made it out so the guy survived...... messed up to say the least.
I'm sitting in awe at the power of mother nature.
the video made it out so the guy survived...... messed up to say the least.
I'm sitting in awe at the power of mother nature.
12-31-2004 | 01:10 AM
#2
Banned
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 1
Who was the guy they were talking about? The guy filming?
With water coming up that slowly, you would think that you could jump to the roof or something. You just watch the people standing around speechless...
Not too graphic by any means...
Somebody's going to find the footage of the 40-ft wave sometime here... That'd be a cool shot. Tragic, absolutely, but also never before seen.
With water coming up that slowly, you would think that you could jump to the roof or something. You just watch the people standing around speechless...
Not too graphic by any means...
Somebody's going to find the footage of the 40-ft wave sometime here... That'd be a cool shot. Tragic, absolutely, but also never before seen.
12-31-2004 | 05:19 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 476
Likes: 33
Originally posted by Begle1
With water coming up that slowly, you would think that you could jump to the roof or something. You just watch the people standing around speechless...
With water coming up that slowly, you would think that you could jump to the roof or something. You just watch the people standing around speechless...
01-01-2005 | 11:31 AM
#7
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,988
Likes: 7
From: Nebraska
Originally posted by oscaroc
I thought i heard somewhere that the wave was moving at up to 500mph
I thought i heard somewhere that the wave was moving at up to 500mph
In the open ocean the energy can travel that fast because you cannot compress a liquid. As it gets closer to shore (shallower) the wave rises and slows down. In the ocean its more like a shock wave traveling than a wave. You can hardly see it until it gets to shore. People on a boat did not even know what was happening. Scuba divers in the water were just moved around alittle. It the shore that gets hammered because it is stationary.
Its hard to understand how water can do this when all we are use to is lakes, stream, and rivers. We still do not fully understand the dynamics of these natural events. We don't even really know how gravity works, or how a tornado forms.
Mother nature still holds alot of secrets. We are mere inhabitants of a planet that is constantly changing, evolving, and hurling through space. Who is driving this pig anyway?
Trending Topics
01-01-2005 | 12:25 PM
#8
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 944
Likes: 0
From: Myrtle Creek Oregon
Mother nature still holds alot of secrets. We are mere inhabitants of a planet that is constantly changing, evolving, and hurling through space. Who is driving this pig anyway?
God is driving. It's a good thing he does'nt have a hangover this morning like some people do. Other wise he might slam into a meteor.
God is driving. It's a good thing he does'nt have a hangover this morning like some people do. Other wise he might slam into a meteor.
01-01-2005 | 04:06 PM
#9
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: Clearwater, FL
"The great Alaska earthquake of 1964, which measured 9.2 on the Richter scale, caused 125 deaths. The quake generated an ocean wave that was responsible for 110 of those deaths. The tsunami reached a maximum height of 220 feet at Valdez Inlet (nearest the epicenter of the quake)."--quoted from http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/s...MPLATE=DEFAULT
How would you like to see that one? If something like that woulda happened and the tsunami went to a more populated area along the West Coast or Japan, there would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths in 1964...just like the one last week. Heck, at 220 ft I'd speculate there could have been millions of deaths!
How would you like to see that one? If something like that woulda happened and the tsunami went to a more populated area along the West Coast or Japan, there would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths in 1964...just like the one last week. Heck, at 220 ft I'd speculate there could have been millions of deaths!
01-01-2005 | 06:21 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 476
Likes: 33
Originally posted by welder27
"The great Alaska earthquake of 1964, which measured 9.2 on the Richter scale, caused 125 deaths. The quake generated an ocean wave that was responsible for 110 of those deaths. The tsunami reached a maximum height of 220 feet at Valdez Inlet (nearest the epicenter of the quake)."--quoted from http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/s...MPLATE=DEFAULT
How would you like to see that one? If something like that woulda happened and the tsunami went to a more populated area along the West Coast or Japan, there would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths in 1964...just like the one last week. Heck, at 220 ft I'd speculate there could have been millions of deaths!
"The great Alaska earthquake of 1964, which measured 9.2 on the Richter scale, caused 125 deaths. The quake generated an ocean wave that was responsible for 110 of those deaths. The tsunami reached a maximum height of 220 feet at Valdez Inlet (nearest the epicenter of the quake)."--quoted from http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/s...MPLATE=DEFAULT
How would you like to see that one? If something like that woulda happened and the tsunami went to a more populated area along the West Coast or Japan, there would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths in 1964...just like the one last week. Heck, at 220 ft I'd speculate there could have been millions of deaths!
01-01-2005 | 08:36 PM
#11
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,988
Likes: 7
From: Nebraska
Originally posted by tankeryanker
God is driving. It's a good thing he does'nt have a hangover this morning like some people do. Other wise he might slam into a meteor.
God is driving. It's a good thing he does'nt have a hangover this morning like some people do. Other wise he might slam into a meteor.
01-01-2005 | 08:59 PM
#12
Administrator / Scooter Bum
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,085
Likes: 47
From: Central VA
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami/Faq/x005_highest
Subject: What was the highest tsunami?
Dr. Hal Mofjeld, harold.mofjeld@noaa.gov and
Dr. Frank Gonzalez, frank.i.gonzalez@noaa.gov:
The highest, reliably measured tsunami on record occurred in Lituya Bay, Alaska. This unusual event was caused by a massive landslide that fell into the bay on July 9, 1958. The resulting wave surged up the slope on the opposite side of the narrow bay to a height of 518 m(1,700 ft).
Subject: What was the highest tsunami?
Dr. Hal Mofjeld, harold.mofjeld@noaa.gov and
Dr. Frank Gonzalez, frank.i.gonzalez@noaa.gov:
The highest, reliably measured tsunami on record occurred in Lituya Bay, Alaska. This unusual event was caused by a massive landslide that fell into the bay on July 9, 1958. The resulting wave surged up the slope on the opposite side of the narrow bay to a height of 518 m(1,700 ft).
01-01-2005 | 09:17 PM
#13
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,988
Likes: 7
From: Nebraska
Originally posted by Shovelhead
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami/Faq/x005_highest
Subject: What was the highest tsunami?
Dr. Hal Mofjeld, harold.mofjeld@noaa.gov and
Dr. Frank Gonzalez, frank.i.gonzalez@noaa.gov:
The highest, reliably measured tsunami on record occurred in Lituya Bay, Alaska. This unusual event was caused by a massive landslide that fell into the bay on July 9, 1958. The resulting wave surged up the slope on the opposite side of the narrow bay to a height of 518 m(1,700 ft).
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami/Faq/x005_highest
Subject: What was the highest tsunami?
Dr. Hal Mofjeld, harold.mofjeld@noaa.gov and
Dr. Frank Gonzalez, frank.i.gonzalez@noaa.gov:
The highest, reliably measured tsunami on record occurred in Lituya Bay, Alaska. This unusual event was caused by a massive landslide that fell into the bay on July 9, 1958. The resulting wave surged up the slope on the opposite side of the narrow bay to a height of 518 m(1,700 ft).
