Originally Posted by BeAChooser
There are few if any faults in or near California that can generate the sort of earthquake that caused the Japan tsunami. The big faults in Southern California aren't even in the ocean. ....
Could you be more poorly informed about how tsunamis work?
LOL! You could not do more to prove you can't even read or think, SG. I stand by what I said. There are indeed few if any faults
in or near California that can generate the sort of earthquakes that caused the Japan tsunami. The big faults
in Southern California aren't even in the ocean. Those statements are entirely accurate given the bolded portions.
Cascadia subduction zone
Great earthquakes in Chile and Alaska
A large Hawaiian Island landslide
None of those sources are "in or near California". And in the same post that you reponded to, after saying what you quoted and calling me uninformed, I specifically mentioned the threat from the Cascadiia subduction zone with considerable detail and indicated it was serious. I mentioned the threat from Alaskan quakes, as well, although they aren't nearly as serious to most California communities (as history has proven).
I did not mention earthquakes in Chile being a threat to California for a reason. Because they aren't. Chile is almost 3 times as far away as Alaska from California. The most powerful earthquake ever recorded, the 9.5 magnitude 1960 Valdivia quake, did not produce a significant tsunami in Southern California, despite the fact that Hilo in Hawaii was devastated by a tsunami caused by the quake. The reason it devastated Hilo, which is also about the same distance as California, had a lot to do with the specific shape of Hilo Bay. In fact, Hilo bay not only focused the deep ocean wave but had a shape that caused the water draining out from the first wave to reinforce the incoming second wave. In California, the largest tsunami heights were on the order of 1 to 2 meters. San Diego, Los Angeles and Long Beach all saw a tsunami under 3 feet in height. Even Crescent City saw a tsunami runup that was less than that from the Alaskan quake I mentioned. Sure, these waves did damage but nothing remotely comparable to the recent Japan tsunami. And all the damage was confined to the coast itself ... damage to boats and docks, for example. Furthermore, it takes about 14 hours for a tsunami from Chile to travel to California. That provides time to react that Hilo and Japan did not have … Hilo because, at that time, they didn't have a tsunami warning system in place in the ocean.
As to the threat from a large Hawaiian Island landslide to California … most conceivable landslides (into the ocean) in Hawaii would not mobilize enough ocean to create a wave that could propagate to California with any appreciable height. Other Hawaiian Islands, perhaps, but not to California. Even if the entire flank of Kilauea were to fall into the sea, which is quite unlikely in the foreseeable future, tsunami heights in California would still not be a serious concern. At most locations, waves would be much smaller than those from the 1960 Chile quake. And who is my source for this? Why the USGS:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/other/landslide.html .
So perhaps you are the one who doesn't really understand tsunami physics, SG?
