Any Pictures Video of Actual Tsunami?

[sfer]

Ran across this: Some surfer forum.

[ThaSaltCracka]

damn!!!!!!

That looks like its close to 30 ft deep.

[sfer]

The discussion after the photos is interesting too. Apparently it comes in as a big surge rather than a big wave. And before, the ocean recedes several hundred meters.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The discussion after the photos is interesting too. Apparently it comes in as a big surge rather than a big wave. And before, the ocean recedes several hundred meters.

[/ QUOTE ]yeah, I knew about the ocean receding. A huge surge, eh, no wave at all? Maybe it depends on the shorline?

[andyfox]

I also heard one guy say there was an unusual, loud hissing noise when the ocean receded, just before the wall of water hit. I heard this noise once too, just before our biggest aftershock in L.A. in 1994. We were outside on a hilltop when we saw a wave come through the ground and the sound was a high-pitched hum of some type. I remember looking at my wife thinking what the hell is that.

[ThaSaltCracka]

did you ask her if she farted?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
A huge surge, eh, no wave at all? Maybe it depends on the shorline?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo

[ThaSaltCracka]

thats what I thought, thanks Wacki. IIRC, the tsunami they had up in Alaska in the early 50's was huge.

[ElSapo]

[ QUOTE ]

What puzzles me is that locations hours from the epicenter seemed not to be prepared. The speed of the wave could have been estimated given the epicenter was known and there was already significant damage one hour out. For instance, Sri Lanka should have had two hours warning. The wave(s) reached the East coast of Africa about five or six hours later.

Can anyone fill me in here?



[/ QUOTE ]

Rick... Just going by what I heard on the news, there was no undersea monitoring equipment to catch the quake. Apparently the U.S. government has such equipment off the west coast of the U.S., but not off the east coast (not really relevant to this discussion perhaps).

I think it amounts to the fact that no monitoring equipment picked up the quake. And if it did, the information dissemination was poor.

That said, the difference in infrastructure in Sri Lanka, Malayasia, etc., is very different... Though I don't know for sure, I'd suspect the same thing occuring on the west coast of the U.S., with hypothetically the same warning (none), would result in far fewer casulties. Like I said, I'm guessing, but I think a difference in infrastructure, emergency response and the like would create a huge difference.

I mean, compare the results of mid-sized earthquakes on rural parts of the world and California.

As for the wave, I had thought it would be larger also -- from descriptions, I was thinking the kind of thing you could see vetter via satellite images. Shows what I know...

ElSapo

[sfer]

Dude, I just noticed your avatar. All this time I thought it was an elephant. I'm dumb.