Of course the big news today is the 8.8 earthquake in Chile and the Tsunami warning stemming from it. There’s not much I could add that’s not already being covered, but I thought this image from the American West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center was interesting. They posted this map with estimated arrival times of tsunami waves generated by the 8.8 earthquake earthquake off the coast of Chile:
Even more interesting is the map they published of the path of energy distribution in the waves. It looks like Hawaii will dodge the worst of it:
The image above depicts wave height in centimeters.
I’m not posting direct links to these images at the center since I don’t want their server to be overwhelmed, so I’ve stored them locally.
It looks like the Aleutian islands may get some significant portion of this as will New Zealand.
The Tsunami Warning Center has a very detailed list of estimated arrival times for waves generated by Saturday’s 8.8 magnitude earthquake at many locations along the west coast of the United States. On the US West coast, the first waves to arrive will be in San Diego just after noon PST.
BONUS:
Quite possibly the stupidest science headline ever, from MSNBC and LiveScience:
Big quake question: Is nature out of control?
and
Chile Earthquake: Is Mother Nature Out of Control?
Newsflash: Nature has never been within our control.
This article at Livescience which MSNBC picked up was written by Jeanna Bryner,
who has also written articles on “The Perils of Text Messaging While Walking” and “Wanted: The Equation of Love”
Her apparent justification for the current headline:
“One scientist, however, says that relative to a time period in the past, the Earth has been more active over the past 15 years or so.”
Since the introduction of the Internet and proliferation of live global satellite news coverage, also in the past 15-20 years, we certainly do hear more about what goes on around the planet, often within minutes of occurrence. Does that mean the planet is getting more active? Not neccessarily, but you can draw the conclusion that are reporting system has improved dramatically during that period.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First wave has hit an outlying island here in NZ, was only 27cm high, but later ones could be higher
The USGS is saying that an aftershock of 7.8 is not impossible. Would something like this – or even the 6.x aftershock – create additional tidal waves?
Another interesting thing to check out is the underwater topography around the Big Island in the S.E. ( GoogleEarth if you have it ). Very steep ascent from the ocean floor to land; 17k foot depth to shore line in about 20 miles, and no reef to slow it down, plus some funneling areas. I think there will be some significant flooding and possibly triggering of underwater landslides.
It looks like Antarctica will also get hit. Maybe some more Luxemburg sized icebergs will be liberated!
Wonder if it will jar loose the Luxemborg Iceolith in Antarctica?
These maps are good examples of the usefulness of models of future events.
REPLY: I agree, wave propagation is linear and fairly easy to predict and model. But like all models it will succumb to chaotic factors with time and distance. I wonder how well they do on predicting secondary waves that rebound? – A
Yes aftershock can but doesn’t necessarily create further water displacement: and nowhere near the scale of the original.
Remember too that the wave height quoted is not amplitude, peak to trough, it is the height above mean sea level.
Which is why as it approaches areas of land which shelve gradually into the sea the sea first retreats and then returns as a much higher wave capable of great destruction because of the enormous kinetic energy it contains.
In deep water of course it is little more than a very fast moving, hundreds of miles per hour, ripple which is why is doesn’t trouble ships far out at sea.
Kindest Regards
(1) Here’s good live coverage for Hawaii:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/category.asp?C=176904&nav=menu55_1_1
and live beach webcams in HI:
http://hawaiianbeachcams.com/beachcams/livecams/lanikai.html
(2) Interesting the breach in our magnetosphere known as the Southern Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) begins in Chile at around the 36th degree latitude and that is also the location of these earthquakes.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/
http://www.earthquake.usgs.gov/
(3) World seismic monitors going bezerk:
http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/heli2.shtml
1.984712,-157.474357
This a very sad event, but it reminds us of how little:
a.) Control mankind has over catastrophic events like this, and
b) The unholy alliance of scientists and politicians can predict.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Former NASA PI for Apollo
What weight does a Tsunami surge place on the unlerlying crust? If a column of water 6000 feet thick is lifted 2 feet (latest height report from the Chathams) that is a lot of unusual load as it rolls across the globe?
Dangers to humanity
1) Earthquake/Tsunami (Tectonic)
2) Volcanoes
3) Asteroids
Very distant last = global warming
The Marquesas have reported 6 foot waves ashore. Hawaii is in full disaster preparedness mode and coastal road closures are imminent. PTC has advised them that 10 foot waves are possible, but actual height unknown. Navy at Pearl Harbour has begun to move 4 ships out to sea, as is the recommendation for small craft owners as well. Hotel guests are advised to go to at least the 3rd floor if they are in the tsunami evacuation zone..
The magnitude of an eathquake has nothing to do with the size of the tsunami. The size of the tsunami is all about the original displacement of water (volume, rate, and direction). The depth and type of earthquake can change the way the tsunami is formed quite dramatically. Also just like any wave the channel can substantially attenuate the wave, for example the continental shelf for california is not a nice gentle slope but a succession of peaks and valleys parallel to the shore, which suck energy from extremely long period waves like tsunamis.
You can watch the development of the tsunami in New Zealand at http://www.geonet.org.nz/tsunami/index.html
Early days yet.
For all of you earthquake experts out there: was this another subduction zone type of earthquake? The 8.8 reading is pretty strong. God bless and keep the people of Chile, they’ve had so many of these bad quakes over the years.
Actually the models do quite well at this sort of thing.
The classic model is the Darbyshire one dimensional wave equation much used by naval architects, physicists, oceanographers etc. which is very satisfactory at predicting wave conditions based on wind strength and fetch.
But as its name suggests it cannot model the effect of crossing wave trains which can produce freaks, and it is only recently that we have started to be able to observe, measure and model these. Because such freaks are rare and short lived these model studies are probability based.
Again athough it will model very well the wave emanating from a single source such as a hurricane it cannot handle local effects close to the shoreline.
In a tsunami however it usually does very well because they are low amplitude solitons travelling at very high speed over deep water and almost all the kinetic energy in the wave is dissipated when it comes ashore: any secondary wave formation is thus largely confined to the immediate locality.
Kindest Regards
Please check out this graph, for a sea level station at San Felix.
Very interesting real-time information for sea level variation:
http://www.ioc-sealevelmonitoring.org//bgraph.php?par=sanf&period=2&time=2010-2-25%2020:18:00
Ecotretas
4m high wave just hit French Polynesia (which is a little closer to Australia than it is to S. America).
Leif Svalgaard (11:46:01) :
These maps are good examples of the usefulness of models of future events.
REPLY: I agree, wave propagation is linear and fairly easy to predict and model. But like all models it will succumb to chaotic factors with time and distance. I wonder how well they do on predicting secondary waves that rebound? – A
The NZ GNS Tsunami watch ran predictive models,but were limited in which scenario to use due to initialization.They had to wait for initial wave heights in outlying islands,The focal wave at 44s 180w were 27cm,The secondary wave amplitude is 50cm.
Negligible, in deep water the wave height is only inches high, and due to its very long wave length is almost undetectable. It only achieves significant depths as the wave energy runs into the ocean bottom near landfall. Compared to normal crustal loads it would be like a small ripple on a pond.
Larry
Subduction zone… yep.
Nobody has made a crack about global warming causing earthquakes yet?
Good, because that would probably be innapropriate.
a jones,
Are freaks technically different from rougue waves or is it just a matter of SSDN?
For all of you earthquake experts out there: was this another subduction zone type of earthquake?
According to the USGS, this “earthquake occurred at the boundary between the Nazca and South American tectonic plates. The two plates are converging at a rate of 80 mm per year. The earthquake occurred as thrust-faulting on the interface between the two plates, with the Nazca plate moving down and landward below the South American plate.”
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2010/20100227.php
Wow. 🙁
Initial wave supposedly just passed Catalina Island off coast of Los Angeles: not so much as a ripple here.
Update NZ off shore stations 44s180w latest surges 1-1.5m (one hour difference from initial data)