DC Tom Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 Wonder how much France, Germany, Spain and the rest of New Europe has sent so far. 180127[/snapback] Quite a bit, actually. A LOT of European tourists are still unaccounted for. And you really expect Bangladesh to start their own earthquake and tsunami monitoring service? With what? Don't be stupid...the inconvenience a warning system that allows the USGS to call someone with authority in Bangladesh is so pitifully small that the only possible reason for your mindless rant is nothing more than pettiness.
RkFast Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 Quite a bit, actually. A LOT of European tourists are still unaccounted for. And you really expect Bangladesh to start their own earthquake and tsunami monitoring service? With what? Don't be stupid...the inconvenience a warning system that allows the USGS to call someone with authority in Bangladesh is so pitifully small that the only possible reason for your mindless rant is nothing more than pettiness. 180200[/snapback] Rail all you want. Fact is that the USA sends more in aid to these shitholes around the world than any other country combined. And when disaster strikes, the USA is the FIRST country to open the checkbook. And more, those countries almost DEMAND the US fork up billions in aid. But as soon as the check is cashed, those "poor downtrodden" around the world, and New Europe continue the orgy of stevestojan about how "bad" the USA is. In short, they take our money, our aid, and everything we got, and then spit right in our eyes. Petty? You can call it that. But if asking that all the GOOD we do be acknowledged once in a while is "mindless", then so be it.
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 Rail all you want. Fact is that the USA sends more in aid to these shitholes around the world than any other country combined. And when disaster strikes, the USA is the FIRST country to open the checkbook. And more, those countries almost DEMAND the US fork up billions in aid. But as soon as the check is cashed, those "poor downtrodden" around the world, and New Europe continue the orgy of stevestojan about how "bad" the USA is. In short, they take our money, our aid, and everything we got, and then spit right in our eyes. Petty? You can call it that. But if asking that all the GOOD we do be acknowledged once in a while is "mindless", then so be it. 180235[/snapback] So it's okay for 20k people to die because they don't kiss our collective asses? Nice attitude, that...remind me, if I ever see you pinned in a burning car, not to stop and help, as you don't kiss my ass.
RkFast Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 I never said they should "kiss our asses". But it would be nice if they didnt take our offerings and then sh-- on us the second they walk out of the room. Would be nice if the good we do was simply RECOGNIZED for a change. Some dumb soldier puts a hood on a POW and its all the news and rage around the world. But we give BILLIONS in aid overnight to disaster relief and billions more to other causes and its treated like it never hapenned.
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 I never said they should "kiss our asses". But it would be nice if they didnt take our offerings and then sh-- on us the second they walk out of the room. Would be nice if the good we do was simply RECOGNIZED for a change. Some dumb soldier puts a hood on a POW and its all the news and rage around the world. But we give BILLIONS in aid overnight to disaster relief and billions more to other causes and its treated like it never hapenned. 180350[/snapback] Oh, okay. We shouldn't give them aid because of the actions of a few idiots in Abu Ghraib.
UConn James Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 In short, they take our money, our aid, and everything we got, and then spit right in our eyes. 180235[/snapback] In ten years, add in 'the death of 5,000 soldiers' and this will be an apt description of Iraq. We don't have flooding and droughts in Texas, energy crisis in California, wildfires in the West, hurricanes in the East that should take precedence over sending billions overseas to feed people who will be killing us tomorrow for our generosity?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 I just read that they were surfing 40' waves off of Hawaii on the 15th... Would this have been any indication of imminent seismic activity? ???
slothrop Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 again, the sensativity on this board is astounding. First, the 22,000 body count will be conservative compared to the numbers in a few weeks after the debris is cleared, the missing are accounted for, and disease takes hold. Also, about U.S. aid - conservatives always say that "we give more than anyone, they should appreciate it!" well, for the largest economy in the history of the world, as a percentage we give crap! Also, contributing to the disaster in Asia as a result of the Tsunami is in our economic and security interest. It would be strategic to give and help as much as we can in an area where Al Qaeda and others are operating. It would complicate thier anti-U.S. messege by mass devotion of resources, both to this disaster. I am not sure I have seen a disaster like this in my lifetime.
DC Tom Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 I just read that they were surfing 40' waves off of Hawaii on the 15th... Would this have been any indication of imminent seismic activity? ??? 181091[/snapback] No. Because of the long fetch over the Pacific, parts of Hawaii gets 40' waves as a matter of routine. And there's a difference between a 'wave' and a 'tsunami', anyway. When waves come ashore, they break. Tsunami, on the other hand, basically look like the entire ocean moving on to shore as a single large mass...hence the term "tidal wave".
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 27, 2004 Posted December 27, 2004 No. Because of the long fetch over the Pacific, parts of Hawaii gets 40' waves as a matter of routine. And there's a difference between a 'wave' and a 'tsunami', anyway. When waves come ashore, they break. Tsunami, on the other hand, basically look like the entire ocean moving on to shore as a single large mass...hence the term "tidal wave". 181154[/snapback] Thanks! On inland lakes (ie: Great lakes) they are called seiche or slosh. Sometime ago I mentioned how parts of where the Aud is today was put under 10' of water from one such event in the 1800's (before construction of the inner and outter breakwaters at Buffalo Harbor). That event actually swept people out of their beds... That area, a predominantly poor harbor district with many shanty dwellings.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I know this sounds crazy... My previous post mentioned inland seiche or slosh which was easily remedied by breakwaters. I know the ocean is a much larger scale and cost would be tremendous... Also looks wouldn't be that great. Would it not be possible to protect the highest population areas and historic tsunami "hot spots" with some sort of engineering? It can't possibly cost as much as the damage and aid being sent there? Then again... That 80' high breakwater might look kinda crappy while you were sitting out on the beach? ;)
DC Tom Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I know this sounds crazy... My previous post mentioned inland seiche or slosh which was easily remedied by breakwaters. I know the ocean is a much larger scale and cost would be tremendous... Also looks wouldn't be that great. Would it not be possible to protect the highest population areas and historic tsunami "hot spots" with some sort of engineering? It can't possibly cost as much as the damage and aid being sent there? Then again... That 80' high breakwater might look kinda crappy while you were sitting out on the beach? ;) 181199[/snapback] What causes "slosh" in a lake? I've never heard of it. Is it atmospheric, like a storm surge from a hurricane, where the wind just pushes the water ahead of it? Engineering against tsunami might be possible...the problem is that the waves themselves are so massive that I don't really know that modern engineering is up to the task. Considering some of the damage from the "Perfect Storm" nor'easter, where the waves (which were just swells) crushed some fairly massive breakwaters, a moderately sized tsunami is probably going to wreck anything you put in front of it. Tsunamis usually pack a lot more power than regular ocean waves.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 What causes "slosh" in a lake? I've never heard of it. Is it atmospheric, like a storm surge from a hurricane, where the wind just pushes the water ahead of it? Engineering against tsunami might be possible...the problem is that the waves themselves are so massive that I don't really know that modern engineering is up to the task. Considering some of the damage from the "Perfect Storm" nor'easter, where the waves (which were just swells) crushed some fairly massive breakwaters, a moderately sized tsunami is probably going to wreck anything you put in front of it. Tsunamis usually pack a lot more power than regular ocean waves. 181249[/snapback] Atmospheric... Strong sustained winds that push the water... Sudden pressure changes... Usually a strong low crossing over the lakes. Here is a simple explaination (U of Wisconsin): Seiche/Slosh Refresh it to see it move... I also gleaned this: Believe it or not, rivers do not always flow downstream! Seiche action on Lake Erie, for example, can actually cause the Detroit River to flow north! While unusual, this does occasionally happen. A seiche is a standing wave caused by winds and/or changing barometric pressures, which pile water up at one end of a lake while drawing it down on the other. An everyday analogy is the way in which water in a bathtub sloshes back and forth when a person gets in at one end. On October 16, 2001, a storm-produced seiche resulted in water level changes of 6.5 feet at the western end of Lake Erie over a six hour period!
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Before coming here I worked in hydrographic survey (Soundings and survey for material removal) thoughout the western lakes. Not necessarily storm driven but, when working in the western basin of Lake Erie (Toldeo) we would have to check our gages frequently... Later on they had them update every minute... You could leave shore with a gage reading and get some distance out... Things would have changed dramatically... Our soundings calibrated to that inaccurate gage reading would then be messed up! Where I work now you can see what happens from wind driven results. Our upper pool is Lake Michigan... We get a stiff north wind blowing down the entire N-S fetch of Lake Michigan and the water really piles up above us (even know we are 7 miles from the harbor (technically not the mouth, since the river is reversed)). It is not uncommon to see our upper pool gage readings jump a foot or two!
erynthered Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 We get a stiff north wind blowing down the entire N-S fetch of Lake Michigan and the water really piles up above us It is not uncommon to see our upper pool gage readings jump a foot or two! 181286[/snapback] You could do a Vegas Show with that. Open up for Wayne Newton?
DC Tom Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Atmospheric... Strong sustained winds that push the water... Sudden pressure changes... Usually a strong low crossing over the lakes.Here is a simple explaination (U of Wisconsin): Seiche/Slosh Refresh it to see it move... I also gleaned this: Believe it or not, rivers do not always flow downstream! Seiche action on Lake Erie, for example, can actually cause the Detroit River to flow north! While unusual, this does occasionally happen. A seiche is a standing wave caused by winds and/or changing barometric pressures, which pile water up at one end of a lake while drawing it down on the other. An everyday analogy is the way in which water in a bathtub sloshes back and forth when a person gets in at one end. On October 16, 2001, a storm-produced seiche resulted in water level changes of 6.5 feet at the western end of Lake Erie over a six hour period! 181275[/snapback] Interesting. Also a completely different effect, I think. Tsunami, in the open ocean, are long-wavelength small-amplitude waves that move (500 mph is about typical, with a crest-to-trough height of maybe a foot and a wavelength of miles.) It's the wavelength and speed that makes them so dangerous: the long wavelength insures a lot of water involved, and the speed insures that, when the wave hits the shallows and starts to build up, that water's moving. I don't think you can get that effect from a wind-driven surge, since it's fundamentally a surface effect. Seiche might be bad, but it's to a degree limited in that it fundamentally can't involve the depths of a body of water they way tsunami can. Of course, I'm not a hydrographer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... (And, of course, I'm doing back-of-the-envelope physics calculations as I type...but that's just me.)
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 You could do a Vegas Show with that. Open up for Wayne Newton? 181297[/snapback] I choose my words wisely with you guys...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Interesting. Also a completely different effect, I think. Tsunami, in the open ocean, are long-wavelength small-amplitude waves that move (500 mph is about typical, with a crest-to-trough height of maybe a foot and a wavelength of miles.) It's the wavelength and speed that makes them so dangerous: the long wavelength insures a lot of water involved, and the speed insures that, when the wave hits the shallows and starts to build up, that water's moving. I don't think you can get that effect from a wind-driven surge, since it's fundamentally a surface effect. Seiche might be bad, but it's to a degree limited in that it fundamentally can't involve the depths of a body of water they way tsunami can. Of course, I'm not a hydrographer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... (And, of course, I'm doing back-of-the-envelope physics calculations as I type...but that's just me.) 181318[/snapback] Exactly. I also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express (they had google! ). I bet in early times, without accurate forecasting it might have caused a big problem... now it still might lead to some property damage. Here... I found something that a seiche at sea might counteract a tsunami: In simple terms, what is a seiche? Could a seiche counteract the forward energy of a tsunami? How do you pronounce "seiche"? Every enclosed body of water has a number of natural resonances. If you sit in a bathtub part full of water and rock back and forth you'll find that at the right period (about a second) you can easily get the waves to grow until they overflow the bath. The resonant oscillation of the water is a seiche. Seiches are often generated in swimming pools by small oscillations from earthquakes - the oscillations happen to be at the right frequency for the swimming pools to "catch" them. During the Northridge earthquake of 1994, swimming pools all over Southern California overflowed. During the great Alaska earthquake of 1964, swimming pools as far away as Puerto Rico were set into oscillation! Tsunamis generate seiches too, although we usually do not consider them as seiches. The predominant period of the tsunami that hit Hawaii in 1946 was fifteen minutes. The natural resonant period of Hilo Bay is about half-an-hour. That meant that every second wave was in phase with the motion of Hilo Bay so that the sloshing of the bay built up. We usually think of the damage to Hilo in 1946 as being simply from the tsunami, but it was really a combination of the tsunami and a tsunami-generated seiche. Could a seiche counteract a tsunami? I assume here you are asking if a seiche generated by seismic waves could counteract any tsunami generated by the earthquake. Interesting idea! I'm afraid the answer is "no," for two reasons. The first reason is timing. On the deep ocean, tsunamis travel about 800 km/hour (500 mph). That's about 0.2 km/s. Earthquake waves travel much faster, say 8 km/s (i.e., forty times faster). Any seiche excited by earthquake waves will have died down before the tsunami arrives. The second reason is frequency of oscillation. Earthquake waves tend to have most of their energy at periods (the time from one wave crest to the next) of ten seconds to a few minutes. Tsunamis tend to have periods of five minutes to as much as an hour. So a seiche excited by earthquake waves would be at too high a frequency to interact with the tsunami. How do you pronounce "seiche?" Sigh-shh. The word was introduced to science by the Swiss seismologist F.A. Forel in 1890. The word had apparently long been used in the German-speaking part of Switzerland to describe oscillations in alpine lakes. Dr. Gerard Fryer Hawaii Inst. of Geophysics & Planetology University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822
DC Tom Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Exactly. I also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express (they had google! ). I bet in early times, without accurate forecasting it might have caused a big problem... now it still might lead to some property damage. Here... I found something that a seiche at sea might counteract a tsunami: In simple terms, what is a seiche? Could a seiche counteract the forward energy of a tsunami? How do you pronounce "seiche"? Every enclosed body of water has a number of natural resonances. If you sit in a bathtub part full of water and rock back and forth you'll find that at the right period (about a second) you can easily get the waves to grow until they overflow the bath. The resonant oscillation of the water is a seiche. Seiches are often generated in swimming pools by small oscillations from earthquakes - the oscillations happen to be at the right frequency for the swimming pools to "catch" them. During the Northridge earthquake of 1994, swimming pools all over Southern California overflowed. During the great Alaska earthquake of 1964, swimming pools as far away as Puerto Rico were set into oscillation! Tsunamis generate seiches too, although we usually do not consider them as seiches. The predominant period of the tsunami that hit Hawaii in 1946 was fifteen minutes. The natural resonant period of Hilo Bay is about half-an-hour. That meant that every second wave was in phase with the motion of Hilo Bay so that the sloshing of the bay built up. We usually think of the damage to Hilo in 1946 as being simply from the tsunami, but it was really a combination of the tsunami and a tsunami-generated seiche. Could a seiche counteract a tsunami? I assume here you are asking if a seiche generated by seismic waves could counteract any tsunami generated by the earthquake. Interesting idea! I'm afraid the answer is "no," for two reasons. The first reason is timing. On the deep ocean, tsunamis travel about 800 km/hour (500 mph). That's about 0.2 km/s. Earthquake waves travel much faster, say 8 km/s (i.e., forty times faster). Any seiche excited by earthquake waves will have died down before the tsunami arrives. The second reason is frequency of oscillation. Earthquake waves tend to have most of their energy at periods (the time from one wave crest to the next) of ten seconds to a few minutes. Tsunamis tend to have periods of five minutes to as much as an hour. So a seiche excited by earthquake waves would be at too high a frequency to interact with the tsunami. How do you pronounce "seiche?" Sigh-shh. The word was introduced to science by the Swiss seismologist F.A. Forel in 1890. The word had apparently long been used in the German-speaking part of Switzerland to describe oscillations in alpine lakes. Dr. Gerard Fryer Hawaii Inst. of Geophysics & Planetology University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 181334[/snapback] Well, it at least supports what I said: seiches and tsunami are two completely different phenomenon with vastly different structures (simply by the difference in speeds), and thus can't really be compared. It also explains why the Hilo tsunami in '46 was such a bad one: the bay is the perfect size to amplify the tsunami wave train as it comes in. When Hilo gets hit with tsunami, they usually get hit bad. In fact, the '46 Hilo tsunami was one of the motivations for setting up the Pacific Rim warning system, as I recall.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Well, it at least supports what I said: seiches and tsunami are two completely different phenomenon with vastly different structures (simply by the difference in speeds), and thus can't really be compared. It also explains why the Hilo tsunami in '46 was such a bad one: the bay is the perfect size to amplify the tsunami wave train as it comes in. When Hilo gets hit with tsunami, they usually get hit bad. In fact, the '46 Hilo tsunami was one of the motivations for setting up the Pacific Rim warning system, as I recall. 181343[/snapback] I understand... I wasn't really trying to say they were both the same... Just the closest event on enclosed waters. Like the event that happened early on in Buffalo... It had to be a shock? Then again, shabbily constructed areas will always come back to bite you in the arse when a nasty natural event takes place!
Recommended Posts