|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tsunami Question For Anyone
Since my question relates to tsunamis I decide to post it here. Well, in school we have a small project to do on tsunamis. We are required to have 7 or more facts, two diagrams, 5 safety measures (5 for before the tsunami, 5 during, 5 after), a good definition of a tsunami, and four causes. I'm not telling you all this so that you can give me the information. Infact I'm already done with it. My science teacher couldn't figure this out and he told our class to try to find it and ask around for peoples ideas and we would discuss it in school.
The question is "What would be the most likely cause for a tsunami to reach the east coast of the United States?"
The only four causes for a tsunami that I found on the internet was:
1. A big volcanic eruption.
2. A meteor.
3. An earthquake.
4. An underwater landslide
(For those who know a little about tsunamis, could you let me know if this information is accurate.)
I could not find the answer to this question on the web so I decided to use process of elimination. Since there aren’t many volcanoes around the east coast (I’m just about positive on this one), a volcanic eruption is probably not the most likely cause for a tsunami to reach the east coast. There haven’t been many meteors in the news so that’s out of the question I guess… and the last two possibilities would be an earthquake or an underwater landslide. An earthquake is a possiblity I would believe, but I have not heard of many tsunamis on the east coast caused by land slides... I hope that some of you of the frihost community could discuss this with me
. Please share your thoughts and opinions.
The question is "What would be the most likely cause for a tsunami to reach the east coast of the United States?"
The only four causes for a tsunami that I found on the internet was:
1. A big volcanic eruption.
2. A meteor.
3. An earthquake.
4. An underwater landslide
(For those who know a little about tsunamis, could you let me know if this information is accurate.)
I could not find the answer to this question on the web so I decided to use process of elimination. Since there aren’t many volcanoes around the east coast (I’m just about positive on this one), a volcanic eruption is probably not the most likely cause for a tsunami to reach the east coast. There haven’t been many meteors in the news so that’s out of the question I guess… and the last two possibilities would be an earthquake or an underwater landslide. An earthquake is a possiblity I would believe, but I have not heard of many tsunamis on the east coast caused by land slides... I hope that some of you of the frihost community could discuss this with me
. Please share your thoughts and opinions.I think it is very very unlikely.. maybe something could happen because of the melting of the polar ice cap... You mean a really big Tsunami right?
No. I mean just a regular tsunami. Big, small, medium. Any size tsunami.
And I don't think that the melting of the polar ice caps is really considered a tsunami... it's more like global flood.
And I don't think that the melting of the polar ice caps is really considered a tsunami... it's more like global flood.
Most likely I think an earthquake could set off a tsunami on the eastern United States.
However all the events you listed are very rare to region except for perhaps for underwater landslides.
Another cause for tsunamis could be tectonic plate shifting which is just a precursor to things like earthquakes and can be cause by magma being pumped out of the Earths' crust (how land mass is formed).
A meteor well depending on the size and trajectory could possibly create a tsunami but most would just a call it a giant wall of water. Its like throwing a stone into a pond except the stone is 10000 bigger.
Meteor Info
Tsunami Info
However all the events you listed are very rare to region except for perhaps for underwater landslides.
Another cause for tsunamis could be tectonic plate shifting which is just a precursor to things like earthquakes and can be cause by magma being pumped out of the Earths' crust (how land mass is formed).
A meteor well depending on the size and trajectory could possibly create a tsunami but most would just a call it a giant wall of water. Its like throwing a stone into a pond except the stone is 10000 bigger.
Meteor Info
Tsunami Info
| Holy wrote: |
| Since my question relates to tsunamis I decide to post it here. Well, in school we have a small project to do on tsunamis. We are required to have 7 or more facts, two diagrams, 5 safety measures (5 for before the tsunami, 5 during, 5 after), a good definition of a tsunami, and four causes. I'm not telling you all this so that you can give me the information. Infact I'm already done with it. My science teacher couldn't figure this out and he told our class to try to find it and ask around for peoples ideas and we would discuss it in school.
The question is "What would be the most likely cause for a tsunami to reach the east coast of the United States?" The only four causes for a tsunami that I found on the internet was: 1. A big volcanic eruption. 2. A meteor. 3. An earthquake. 4. An underwater landslide (For those who know a little about tsunamis, could you let me know if this information is accurate.) |
No it isn't, or at least it is incomplete unless volcanic eruption also includes an associated Island collapse or large landslide (not underwater).
In general terms an underwater slip or slide will produce Tsunamis of up to 10 metres, as will the other causes listed (apart from meteor). A meteor or, more likely, a volcanic island collapse, can cause a Mega-Tsunami which is of a different order of potential disaster - theoretical wave-heights of 1 kilometre or more and, even worse, very long wavelengths.
The island of Las Palmas is volcanic and scientists are pretty sure that part of it will collapse into the sea at some point. When it does it will form a Mega Tsunami that will reach the east coast some hours later. This will be devastating.
Here is some further reading for you.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsunami_transcript.shtml
I think that the most likely cause could be a meteor. This is because the East Coast is not that close to any active tectonic plaet boundries. I know that this does not mean that a tsunami is unlikely from this but since the tsunami would have to travel across half the atlantic ocean to reach America it would probably either go over a shallow piece of ocean or even hit an island which would effectivly stop the tsunami. There are a lot of volcanoes in the middle of the atlantic ocean but again the tsunami would have to go across half the atlantic ocean. Therefore the only likely causes, in my opinion would be a meteor and an underwater landslide. I think that the most likely cause would therefore be a meteor, although I think that this is unlikely. I have never heard of an underwater landslide and so I cannot comment on this.
| llobo1 wrote: |
| I think that the most likely cause could be a meteor. This is because the East Coast is not that close to any active tectonic plaet boundries. I know that this does not mean that a tsunami is unlikely from this but since the tsunami would have to travel across half the atlantic ocean to reach America it would probably either go over a shallow piece of ocean or even hit an island which would effectivly stop the tsunami. There are a lot of volcanoes in the middle of the atlantic ocean but again the tsunami would have to go across half the atlantic ocean. Therefore the only likely causes, in my opinion would be a meteor and an underwater landslide. I think that the most likely cause would therefore be a meteor, although I think that this is unlikely. I have never heard of an underwater landslide and so I cannot comment on this. |
No...the size and wavelength of the Tsunami is such that it would not even be slightly slowed by an island or reef. We are talking about a potential wave height of around 650 metres and a wavelength of up to 40 kilometres. The energy in such a wave is enormous. It would quite easily reach 20 kilometres inland when it arrived at the US coast (it would be travelling at around 700 km per hour - which will give around 8 hours before it hits). Believe me this will be VERY bad indeed..
yes most probable a meteor. there is plenty of water there to be striked by a meteor.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
No...the size and wavelength of the Tsunami is such that it would not even be slightly slowed by an island or reef. We are talking about a potential wave height of around 650 metres and a wavelength of up to 40 kilometres. The energy in such a wave is enormous. It would quite easily reach 20 kilometres inland when it arrived at the US coast (it would be travelling at around 700 km per hour - which will give around 8 hours before it hits). Believe me this will be VERY bad indeed.. |
So ok possibly this could happen. I still stand by what I originally said; that a meteor is the most likely cause of a major tsunami is a meteor. However, I think that on the east coast of america a tsunami would be quite unlikely. And also it does not take much to slow down the base of such a tsunami ande so make the wave break, despite the amount of energy carried in the wave. But another way that such a tsunami could be created is from an underwater thermonuclear explosion. And this could potentially happen in todays world. (A very pessimistic view)
| llobo1 wrote: |
| So ok possibly this could happen. I still stand by what I originally said; that a meteor is the most likely cause of a major tsunami is a meteor. However, I think that on the east coast of america a tsunami would be quite unlikely. And also it does not take much to slow down the base of such a tsunami ande so make the wave break, despite the amount of energy carried in the wave. But another way that such a tsunami could be created is from an underwater thermonuclear explosion. And this could potentially happen in todays world. (A very pessimistic view) |
I'm afraid you are talking nonsense. I suggest you think a bit deeper about what I said and perhaps do a bit of reading. Think about what it requires to make a wave with a wavelength of 40 kilometres 'break'.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
I'm afraid you are talking nonsense. I suggest you think a bit deeper about what I said and perhaps do a bit of reading. Think about what it requires to make a wave with a wavelength of 40 kilometres 'break'. |
Absolutely.
And as for an underwater thermonuclear explosion, there have been underwater tests with atomic (but not thermonuclear) weapons. (Operation Crossroads, test BAKER, Operation Hardtack's Wahoo device, and Operation WIGWAM). To my knowledge there have been no thermonuclear detonations underwater.
However the effects would be the same. The wave effects follow similar rules as tsunamis and are dependent upon the depth of the detonation as well as the yield.
I don't see why anyone would ever use a nuclear or thermonuclear device to create a tsunami though. That is a waste of energy when the same device detonated at or, even better, at a proper altitude, could cause far more damage to a target. Underwater detonations are only practical for attacking naval assets.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: | ||||
Absolutely. And as for an underwater thermonuclear explosion, there have been underwater tests with atomic (but not thermonuclear) weapons. (Operation Crossroads, test BAKER, Operation Hardtack's Wahoo device, and Operation WIGWAM). To my knowledge there have been no thermonuclear detonations underwater. However the effects would be the same. The wave effects follow similar rules as tsunamis and are dependent upon the depth of the detonation as well as the yield. I don't see why anyone would ever use a nuclear or thermonuclear device to create a tsunami though. That is a waste of energy when the same device detonated at or, even better, at a proper altitude, could cause far more damage to a target. Underwater detonations are only practical for attacking naval assets. Respectfully, M |
When I said that a thermonuclear detonation could produce a tsunami I did not say anything about this being intentional, or the thermonucler expolosion being used in warfare. I meant that given the number of countries attempting to develop nuclear weapons and which are continuing to develop nuclear weapons it is possible, if not likely, that someone may attempt to set off an underwater explosion. However, I am not sure what was happening when I wrote that post since it does not seem to make sense to me now. sorry.
| llobo1 wrote: |
| I think that the most likely cause could be a meteor. This is because the East Coast is not that close to any active tectonic plaet boundries. I know that this does not mean that a tsunami is unlikely from this but since the tsunami would have to travel across half the atlantic ocean to reach America it would probably either go over a shallow piece of ocean or even hit an island which would effectivly stop the tsunami. There are a lot of volcanoes in the middle of the atlantic ocean but again the tsunami would have to go across half the atlantic ocean. Therefore the only likely causes, in my opinion would be a meteor and an underwater landslide. I think that the most likely cause would therefore be a meteor, although I think that this is unlikely. I have never heard of an underwater landslide and so I cannot comment on this. |
The properties of waves basically allows for the wave along with all of its power to be transferred easily across the enitre ocean. Yes there are inactive tectonic plates everywhere, but the fact is, the east coast of the US is one of the most protected coasts. But yes, it could happen. The only way a wave "dies" is if it hits something solid or a very shallow area.
And the tsunami from a meteor idea comes from The Day After Tomorrow, and it would have to be a HUGE meteor in order to do any damage at all.
| Packfan104L4 wrote: |
| [The properties of waves basically allows for the wave along with all of its power to be transferred easily across the enitre ocean. Yes there are inactive tectonic plates everywhere, but the fact is, the east coast of the US is one of the most protected coasts. But yes, it could happen. The only way a wave "dies" is if it hits something solid or a very shallow area. |
| Quote: |
| And the tsunami from a meteor idea comes from The Day After Tomorrow, and it would have to be a HUGE meteor in order to do any damage at all. |
That depends what you mean by huge. A couple of km would do a lot of damage, and that's a comparative tiddler.
Tsunami's waves dont "break as they hit the shore, they rise in height as they reach shallower waters
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Tsunami's waves dont "break as they hit the shore, they rise in height as they reach shallower waters |
Exactly. a 10-20KM shallow would be sufficient to dissipate much of the energy - that was the point I was making...but since there is no such stretch of water in line then that is not going to happen.
Remember also that this thing will be WAY bigger than a Tsunami. Tsunami are inherently limited in size by the way they are formed (underground fault line is most common). Earthquakes rarely produce more than a 10m slippage which limits the wave to about the same - 10m. The collapse of the Las Palmas volcano will generate a Mega-Tsunami somewhere in the region of 500-750 metres heigh with a 40 kilometre wavelength....imagine seeing that coming towards you....
I think earthquake can cause tsunami in US too. Under sea earthquake can cause disaster to the coastal city.
| budiman wrote: |
| I think earthquake can cause tsunami in US too. Under sea earthquake can cause disaster to the coastal city. |
Yes, we know it can. It's amazing how easy it is to forget or not even acknowledge the fact that a few years ago a quarter of a million people died in such a disaster. I suspect perceptions might be different had those people been Western.
My point was, however, that such a quake will produce a wave, at max, of 10 metres. The wave I was describing is of a different order of magnitude
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Yes, we know it can. It's amazing how easy it is to forget or not even acknowledge the fact that a few years ago a quarter of a million people died in such a disaster. I suspect perceptions might be different had those people been Western. My point was, however, that such a quake will produce a wave, at max, of 10 metres. The wave I was describing is of a different order of magnitude |
Thanks for the info on this, Chris. I wasn't familiar with the potential threat from this volcano in the Canaries. I have a slight fascination with mega-disaster threats (especially in the U.S.) and didn't know about this one.
Respectfully,
M
My pleasure.
Further reading and discussion:
http://www.newsmedianews.com/tsunami.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Palma
http://www.benfieldhrc.org/in_the_news/press_cuttings/Insurance%20Day/why_the_only_certainty.htm
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=119591&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=0&fpart=
Further reading and discussion:
http://www.newsmedianews.com/tsunami.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Palma
http://www.benfieldhrc.org/in_the_news/press_cuttings/Insurance%20Day/why_the_only_certainty.htm
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=119591&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=0&fpart=
I chose landslide but actually I think it probably won't be an underwater one.
I heard there might be a danger of an island off the coast of Africa that could sink in a few years, which would create an enormeous tidal wave that would reach the East coast, but I don't know if the story is based on scientific research or if it is just another 'prophet of disaster' story.
I heard there might be a danger of an island off the coast of Africa that could sink in a few years, which would create an enormeous tidal wave that would reach the East coast, but I don't know if the story is based on scientific research or if it is just another 'prophet of disaster' story.
Speaking of Mega-disaters, I wonder which is actually in more danger of erupting first, Las Palmas, or the Yellowstone super volcano? I seem to recall hearing that both are overdue for an event.
There is also the danger along the East coast of smaller Tsunamis from landslides. I'll have to see if I can find the article I read, but there is an area along the contenental shelf that is unstable, and prone to slides.
There is also the danger along the East coast of smaller Tsunamis from landslides. I'll have to see if I can find the article I read, but there is an area along the contenental shelf that is unstable, and prone to slides.
| Jinx wrote: |
| Speaking of Mega-disaters, I wonder which is actually in more danger of erupting first, Las Palmas, or the Yellowstone super volcano? I seem to recall hearing that both are overdue for an event. |
I think both are examples of events that cannot be given meaningful probabilities in time. Both WILL happen, but science is not able to assign any meaningful answers to the question 'when'.
 |