For West coast of North America Only: TSUNAMI???!!!

Discussion in 'Community' started by G5orbust, Jun 15, 2005.

  1. G5orbust macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #1
    HA! The Earth is at it again! Anyone affected by that super hyped and ultimately wasted tsunami warning?
     
  2. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #2

    do you have a link on this - I'm curious....

    D
     
  3. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #3

    From CNN. I think this is what G5orbust is talking about. We even got an article in our local paper about it today so it must be pretty big news.

    Off topic: any chance G5orbust will have to change his name in 2007? ;)
     
  4. tech4all macrumors 68040

    tech4all

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    NorCal
    #4
    Yes this is true. Yesterday the west coast of the U.S., part of Mexico and Canada got a Tsunami warning due to an earthquake about 90 miles off the coast of California. Luckily there was no wave generated by the quake :)
     
  5. G5orbust thread starter macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #5
    Haha, Ive had this name forever. It doesnt even mean anything, though it probably did at one point... :rolleyes: Ill continue to keep it far as Im concerned at the moment.

    And yes, that story links to what Im talking about. Apparently it didnt create the big wave because the water went sideways instead of forward and backward. I dont get it, maybe someone more familiar with the physics of wave action can explain this one?
     
  6. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #6

    At a guess, the same reason you make a bigger splash when you jump into a swimming pool as opposed to trying to cause a wave by... umm... pushing the water to the side? Water is much easier to displace vertically than horizontally because of both gravity and the fact that the ocean is relatively long and flat (breadth far exceeds depth). Of course, don't quote me because then you'd be quoting stuff straight from my ***. :(
     
  7. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #7
    I live in So Cal, we had a 5.8 quake the other day at around 8:30 AM. I was chilling in bed kinda hungover and I thought i was tripping, but then I looked out at my pool and the water was splashing. They say the big one shouuld hit down here soon (so cal), and it will be around a 7.6-7.9, which is huge.
     
  8. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    I heard about the earthquake awhile after it happened, but none of my friends or family in Cali mentioned it so it must not have been that bad. By the time I heard about the Tsunami warning, it was already over. Glad it wasn't as bad as they were predicting. I guess we're all a little touchy after the last one in Asia.
     
  9. G5orbust thread starter macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #9
    Well, wave action caused by earthquakes compared with normal wave action is like apples and oranges. Waves caused by normal wave action have force on the top, while earthquake derived waves have energy that spans all the way to the bottom. This creates quite a different wave effect. In essense, a tsunami wave will not begin to break, I believe, until the bottom begins to become much more shallow, indicating a shoreline. A normal wave will do something much similar, but the total energy of the earthquake wave is so much greater because the force spans such a vertial distance that the contact with shallower water causes the force to be thrust upward. The greater force present means that more water is forced upward and therfore, a tsunami wave. Thus, visual contact with a tsunami wave en route is very difficult, as the energy for the wave doesnt create a big wave the entire way. Instead it just lurks until it is forced to rise, creating the huge surge. Beyond this, I dont know much, which is why I asked about that sideways motion thing. In my mind, I dont believe it should matter where the energy happens to hit the water. No matter what, far as Im concerned, the water will move so long as the force is there, though I guess that is not the case.
     
  10. Poeben macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    #10
    What I have read leads me to believe that it was a sideways motion of the earth's plates. This motion produces much less displacement than a vertical motion, such as the quake that triggered the tsunami in Asia. In general, tsunamis will behave in an omnidirectional manner, so wave direction is a moot point.
     
  11. After G macrumors 68000

    After G

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #11
    It was like 150 miles off the coast. No way it would hit here with any sort of force that would matter. Not with a quake that small anyway.
     
  12. G5orbust thread starter macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #12
    Haha, small compared with what? A 7.0 earthquake generates the equivalent of about 200,000 tons of TNT (source). Mind you the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 13,000 tons. Doing the math, thats like detonating 15 Hiroshima bombs at the same time, under water. That, to be sure, is no small amount of energy.
     

Share This Page