shadron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 5,918
Not sure I understand the snarky tone - is this not a feasible possibility?
My snarky tone is because I wanted to get some discussion going. I find my more usual dry fact tone doesn't normally do that. More about this later.
Corsair 115 said:I don't know if it's the same program, but I remember a show I saw a number of years ago on the Discovery Channel (Canadian version) that was on this same topic. From what I recall it seemed to be rationally plausible. If the side of that particular volcano does eventually collapse into the ocean, those millions of tons of rock are going to displace a hell of a lot of seawater.
The typical earthquake tsunami displaces perhaps 30' of water over a thousand square miles, or cubic miles of water. Show me a cubic mile landslide. The 1958 landslide into Lituya Bay was 30 million cubic meters, or 0.0072 cubic mile.
Skeptic Ginger said:I think you might need to review the 12-26-04 Indian Ocean Tsunami.
These mega-disasters are unlikely in any one person's lifetime but 100% likely in some person's lifetime, if that makes sense. Not something to keep one from living in Florida or in the Cascadia Subduction Zone where I live, but not something I would dismiss altogether.
The thesis in the program is that earthquake-caused tsunamis are limited in height to the vertical displacement of the ocean floor, typically being 30-40' for major earthquakes. The ones caused by landslides are not so limited, and thus are "supertsunamis" (their words. not mine). This falls well within my definition of a falacious argument (more anon), but that's what they are saying. I'm well aware, and respectful, of earthquake tsunamis. And yes, Cascadia is one of those places; I live near Denver, well within the range of a Yellowstone caldera event, and even closer to the largest volcanic caldera event known in history, called the La Garita. Good luck to all of us, and I mean that.
jj said:The thing missing from the Canary Island scenario is that the distance attenuation component of the wave seemed to be missing.
Yes. That was the first thing that grabbed me too, when I saw that ridiculous box of rocks experiment. The wavefront doesn't race in a tunnel across the Atlantic, it disburses across at least 180 degrees, and more; it is a distance squared problem, not linear. Of course, that is the same as earthquake tsunamis, indeed earthquake tsunamis generally disburse over 360 degrees, as they usually occur is deep ocean, so this problem with the supertsunami analysis is true and valid, but it's not the whole story.
And many scientists seem to agree: http://www.lapalma-tsunami.com/mader_lapalma.pdf
MG1962 said:What makes you think the only evidence is from the Canary islands, or that such events have not occurred in recent times circa 1500AD on the Australian coast
True. The historical event of a landslide at Mt Etna in 8000 BCE was the best example of a supertsunami I could find, and yet all the evidence about its size (50-100 meters high around the Med) and devastation is somewhat shakey and equivocal. The tsunami you mention is the work of one scientist, Dr. Bryant of Woolongong University, and I can find no where where he mentions what he thinks the cause of the tsunami is. As I said above, I have respect for earthquake caused tsunamis, but I question the notion that landslides can be so hugely different as to merit a new term, supertsunami.
quarky said:I'd like to see a top ten list of our doomed-ness.
But I guess it would be off topic.
I live on the New Madrid fault, below a huge impoundment.
Jezus, Quarky, head for the hills. Say, 500 miles an any direction but south.
Marduk said:you need to be more worried by microbes than anything larger
I agree with that, personally.