|
The IOW is slowly sinking, it's only a matter of time before the sea bridges the gap between Yarmouth and Freshwater Bay. -- Martin The Car Park at Freshwater Bay is below sea level and it is only the sea wall keeping Neptune out. At the other end in Sandown Bay, it is only the Sea Wall near the Canoe Lake (as was) stopping the Island splitting again round to Bembridge. 'That' wall is quite substantial and I don't think a wave, or sets of waves as they had in Thailand would have breached it. (Had a text from our daughter, on her way home from Thailand now. Gets to Heathrow in the morning) Mike |
In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote: However, the most likely cause of water-borne carnage is a certainty in the next century or so, but our wonderful government is attempting (and failing) to hide it using terrorism legislation. Probably so that they can say "But we couldn't POSSIBLY have known" and the resulting enquiry will acquit them of all negligence. Could you explain that Nick? Are we back to the Canaries again? Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote: The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable damage.. A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) -- Sacha (remove the weeds for email) |
On 3/1/05 16:46, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote: In article , Bob Hobden wrote: However, the most likely cause of water-borne carnage is a certainty in the next century or so, but our wonderful government is attempting (and failing) to hide it using terrorism legislation. Probably so that they can say "But we couldn't POSSIBLY have known" and the resulting enquiry will acquit them of all negligence. Could you explain that Nick? Are we back to the Canaries again? Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. This would appear to be one of the reasons that many are strongly anti this legislation - anything can be hidden from us or pushed through parliament under the need for 'secrecy and security'. Pah! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:27:03 +0100, "JennyC" wrote: "Douglas" wrote in message ... If a tsunami gets us then there isn't going to be much left of Europe let alone the UK. .... At least the plants will get wattered ;-) Yeah, but it's salt water. how will this affect growing crops in the near futire? Who said it's going to happen in the near future? Martin You'd hope that the inhabitants will be able to plant some crops asap to relieve the food aid that I hope they will get...... Jenny |
JennyC wrote:
"Douglas" wrote in message ... If a tsunami gets us then there isn't going to be much left of Europe let alone the UK. .... At least the plants will get wattered ;-) Yeah, but it's salt water. how will this affect growing crops in the near futire? Jenny I believe that Salicornia would be a suitable crop - we in East Anglia are fans of it. (Well, some of us are...) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Weather bosses decided that it needed a more up to date image and rebranding ............?? |
[quote=Mike]
They say when it goes, that will be the end of New York.[/i][/color] And for once it won't be Hollywood responsible, my my, what a novelty! |
Quote:
What you need is one giant elastic band, placed round the island to hold it together. Then you can start to superglue it. |
|
"Sacha" wrote in message k... On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote: The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable damage.. A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) As well as New York Franz |
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:36:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:16:35 +0100, "JennyC" wrote: "Mike" wrote in message ... What are the views of those on uk.rec.gardening if it happens, and who will it effect? I am about 50 metres inland from the Cliff Walk between Sandown and Shanklin on the Isle of Wight and about 50 metres above sea level. But the Island could very well become 3 Islands again. Mike, on the Isle(s) of Wight? I live 6 metres below sea level..................lets hope the polar ice stays where it is (and frozen!) I'm 7 metres above :-) How sound is the structure below you? Sand and stroop all the way down to Oz. In fact we are 1 metre above sea level not 7. Oh dear Franz |
"Mike" wrote in message ... Unless I am mistaken, there is no plate boundary nearby, nor are there any active submarine volcanoes around there, so you will probably be OK. So glad :-)) I have so much to do :-)) I think you will be reasonably shielded from that island in the Canaries, part of which is expected to dslide off into the Atlantic at any time now. "At any time now" in relation to when ;-)) ? Now. {:-)) If I understand the situation correctly, there is a moderately high and rising probability per annum. Sorry, I don't know the actual number. Rather like the notice on the shut shop, "Back soon". Next October is 'soon' with respect to Christmas 2025 They say when it goes, that will be the end of New York. I believe that if that is the case, 'something' would have been done by now if 'any time now' relates to this year!! It is the case. What would you recommend? Franz |
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:53:00 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote: They say when it goes, that will be the end of New York. I believe that if that is the case, 'something' would have been done by now if 'any time now' relates to this year!! And what would you suggest that "they" do? Get a couple of big sticks and prop it up? You'd need a lot of string and blu-tac to hold back 500 billion tons of rock. Don't let science ruin a good discussion, that's Franz's job. :-) {:-)) I would recommend that they start making plans for evacuating New York. They wil have around 10 hours warning. Perhaps theyhave already made plans, but can't make them public because of the grand panic which would follow immediately after the announcement. Franz |
I believe that if that is the case, 'something' would have been done by now if 'any time now' relates to this year!! It is the case. What would you recommend? Franz Making sure there are no people in the area. (I don't know the situation so do not know how habitated it is, if it is!!). Then get the Navy to pound it with smally shells to 'knock bits off', or even get a demolition team in if the situation permits. Rather difficult to offer suggestions without the 'local' knowledge, but if the situation is as grim as shown, and it is not just 'news hype', then fingers out should be the order of the day. Mike |
"Sacha" wrote in message k... On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote: The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable damage.. A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) ....and a more recent one I read said that studies of actual landslides in those islands showed it tended to fall off in relatively small chunks that wouldnt cause any significant damage at all. That of course gets much less headline space than an alarming report. Which is why everytime a new asteroid is spotted the first you hear about it is what the odds of it crashing into the earth and destroying all life (or an area the size of Wales) are. However I did manage to find the report (amongst the other 999,999 prophesying doom.).... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3963563.stm -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:21:24 +0100, wrote: When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? Why not use the Japanese word for earthquake too? AIUI, the term 'tidal wave' is strictly incorrect, as the wave has nothing to do with tides, unlike some other waves such as the Severn Bore. Tsunami is the 'correct' term (even though we all know what a tidal wave is). It apparently means 'harbour wave', which sounds just as inappropriate. That is correct. "Tidal wave" in English gives entirely the wrong impression. Just before a big tsunami strikes the sea drains away rapidly from the shoreline for a short while. Anyone living in a tsunami prone region should know that this means run for high ground. Tsunami is basically correct. They are an artefact of the deep water shockwave running into ever more shallow coastal waters, harbour and beach. Well out to sea in deep water the effect is much less. Japanese for earthquake is "jishin". By no means unpronouncable but the English language version is not misleading and so remains in use. Regards, Martin Brown |
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:15:50 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:
It apparently means 'harbour wave', which sounds just as inappropriate. Not really out in deep water tsunami are not great towering things, they may be hardly noticeable in the normal swell. They only get big as they come ashore. Normal waves are just surface features but a tsunami is the whole ocean depth rising and falling. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
|
|
"Douglas" wrote in message ... June Hughes Wrote: In message When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? I had never heard of one until there was a programme on TV around a year or so ago. -- June Hughes Weather bosses decided that it needed a more up to date image and rebranding ............?? Could be they were looking for a short, snappy and memorable name for an unusually large ocean wave caused by an undersea earthquake. The japanese have a name for such waves, perhaps because they live on islands in an area of frequent earthquake activity, so it probably made sense to adopt the term. |
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message . uk... On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote: The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable damage.. A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) As well as New York We'll miss the Scillies but NY? Let us hope no terrorist group discovers a means of triggering the landslide .... |
"Douglas" wrote in message ... Tim Challenger Wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote: And what would you suggest that "they" do? Get a couple of big sticks and prop it up? You'd need a lot of string and blu-tac to hold back 500 billion tons of rock. Tim C. Don't be so silly! What you need is one giant elastic band, placed round the island to hold it together. Then you can start to superglue it. Or you could build a giant sea wall/dam around the island and pump out all the water so there's no giant splash if/when the chunk falls off :-) |
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Sacha" wrote in message k... On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote: The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable damage.. A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) As well as New York Franz Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs) |
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:28:29 +0000 (UTC), Franz Heymann wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:53:00 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote: They say when it goes, that will be the end of New York. I believe that if that is the case, 'something' would have been done by now if 'any time now' relates to this year!! And what would you suggest that "they" do? Get a couple of big sticks and prop it up? You'd need a lot of string and blu-tac to hold back 500 billion tons of rock. Don't let science ruin a good discussion, that's Franz's job. :-) {:-)) I would recommend that they start making plans for evacuating New York. They wil have around 10 hours warning. Perhaps theyhave already made plans, but can't make them public because of the grand panic which would follow immediately after the announcement. Franz Thanks Franz, knew we could rely on you ;-) -- Tim C. |
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:09:34 -0000, BAC wrote:
"Douglas" wrote in message ... Tim Challenger Wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote: And what would you suggest that "they" do? Get a couple of big sticks and prop it up? You'd need a lot of string and blu-tac to hold back 500 billion tons of rock. Tim C. Don't be so silly! What you need is one giant elastic band, placed round the island to hold it together. Then you can start to superglue it. Or you could build a giant sea wall/dam around the island and pump out all the water so there's no giant splash if/when the chunk falls off :-) I like that idea. Imagine the size of the beaches they'd get! -- Tim C. |
Charlie wrote:
To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance This is contentious. Have you read http://www.benfieldhrc.org/CentreNew...es/tsunami.htm or http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...anscript.shtml More recent suggestions that it would break up before falling, and "only" cause a wave 2 to 3m high have been made: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3963563.stm . That page has links to sites that support and oppose the original tale. It boils down to "we can't know the future". |
On 4/1/05 9:11, in article ,
"Charlie Pridham" wrote: snip Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. But isn't the chunk of La Palma predicted to fall into the sea following volcanic action? -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:51:03 -0000, "BAC" wrote: "Douglas" wrote in message ... June Hughes Wrote: In message When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? I had never heard of one until there was a programme on TV around a year or so ago. -- June Hughes Weather bosses decided that it needed a more up to date image and rebranding ............?? Could be they were looking for a short, snappy and memorable name for an unusually large ocean wave caused by an undersea earthquake. The japanese have a name for such waves, perhaps because they live on islands in an area of frequent earthquake activity, so it probably made sense to adopt the term. We have a term for it too Tidal Wave. True, however our language is peppered with words of 'foreign' origin, adopted for one reason or another, it's one way it evolves. |
|
|
We have a term for it too Tidal Wave. That's the trouble. It was misleading. A tsunami has nothing at all to do with tides, and that's why they changed it. L -- Remover the rock from the email address |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:25:36 +0000, Lazarus Cooke wrote:
We have a term for it too Tidal Wave. That's the trouble. It was misleading. A tsunami has nothing at all to do with tides, and that's why they changed it. L At least it indicates that it's a wave, whereas the word "tsunami" tells the uninitiated naff-all. Do you object to the name "slow worm"? Or toadstool? (to add the gardening topic). -- Tim C. |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:23:20 +0100, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:00:27 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:21:24 +0100, wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:57:00 +0000, June Hughes wrote: In message , Cerumen writes wrote in message om... On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote: The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable damage.. I believe that was the earthquake and tsunami that wiped out Lisbon. When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? Why not use the Japanese word for earthquake too? I *think* there's a technical difference. A tsunami is caused by an undersea earthquake, or seaquake I suppose. Whereas a tidal wave can be caused by a "landbased" earthquake. A tidal wave can also be caused by storms or be one of those "megawaves" that swamp ships occasionally. It's not true the two terms are interchangeable. Correct. They are different, but in this case they are more-or-less interchangeable. Not in all cases. I stick to tidal wave, but then I still say Peking, Madras and Bombay. -- Tim C. |
"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message om... We have a term for it too Tidal Wave. That's the trouble. It was misleading. A tsunami has nothing at all to do with tides, and that's why they changed it. Well, the OED definition of 'tidal wave' is "Geog. an exceptionally large ocean wave esp. one caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption.", so it isn't misleading if one is familiar with the definition. I believe the literal translation of 'tsunami' is 'harbour wave', and, if so, that might itself be considered misleading, since tsunami are not limited to harbours, and not all waves in harbours are tsunami, either. Perhaps the fact most English speakers are not Japanese speakers and are hence unlikely to be confused by possible quibbles regarding the literal meaning of the term is one reason many of us consider 'tsunami' a more apt term than 'tidal wave'. Whatever we choose to call them doesn't alter their destructive powers, of course, but if there is an almost universally understood term for the phenomenon, I can't see the harm in using it. |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:25:04 +0100, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:01:22 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:21:24 +0100, wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:57:00 +0000, June Hughes wrote: In message , Cerumen writes wrote in message om... On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote: The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable damage.. I believe that was the earthquake and tsunami that wiped out Lisbon. When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? Why not use the Japanese word for earthquake too? If you studied geology you'd have used the word frequently since at least the mid 1970s. "Tidal Waves" were covered in the GCE O level geography syllabus back in the nineteen fifties Of course, what I meant was that it's not a new word in English, it's been around for decades at least in technical use, not that it is or has been a replacement for tidalwave. -- Tim C. |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:01:05 +0000, Sacha wrote:
On 4/1/05 9:11, in article , "Charlie Pridham" wrote: snip Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. But isn't the chunk of La Palma predicted to fall into the sea following volcanic action? Yes, but the eruption may not need to be vary large, just the right sort that lets water in behind the slipping section. -- Tim C. |
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:11:41 -0000, Charlie Pridham wrote:
Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. Rubbish. The speed of rock falling determines the wavelength of the wave, this would determine wether it travels more or less straight or would be diffracted around land masses. We are talking somewhat bigger bits of rock than icebergs dropping off a glacier in to the sea. Issue 2259 of New Scientist magazine, 07 October 2000: "It's hard to imagine what would happen if half a trillion tonnes of rock slid into the sea. But Hermann Fritz, a PhD student at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, has spent several years modelling how landslides generate waves when they fall into water. Earlier this year, he constructed a lab model of the western flank of the Cumbre Vieja in a wave tank. The model is an elongated wedge-shaped block resting on a 10-degree slope with the tip of the block lying just under the water. When the block is released, it slides down the slope generating a wave, which is recorded by a high-speed camera. Fritz found that the sliding block generated a long, shallow, fast-moving wave¡Xthe classic profile of a tsunami. Scaling up 10,000 times, the model predicts that in real life the crest of the wave generated by the collapse of the western flank of the Cumbre Vieja would initially be a staggering 650 metres above normal sea level, more than enough to submerge the tallest building in the world. Fritz admits that there is a big size difference between his model and the real tsunami, but he has no doubt that the dimensions of the wave are in the right ballpark." and NS 29 August 2001: "When the La Palma volcano caves in, Ward says it will trigger a series of around ten waves, spaced about a hundred kilometres apart. As they reach the shallow water near the North American coast, they will build up to about 50 metres high, enough to travel several kilometres inland. "There's a significantly broad danger zone," says Day. Although the volcano's unstable flank points directly towards North America, it is not just North Americans who should be worried. Day originally estimated that the collapse would create a shockwave travelling in a straight line across the Atlantic, directly towards America's East Coast. This would happen if the speed of the landslide was faster than the speed of the waves in deep water. But the model shows that the landslide will actually move at around 100 metres per second, about two-thirds as fast as the waves in the water. This means the tsunamis will spread out in an arc. Shallower water near La Palma would then slow the waves down, forcing them to curl around towards northern Africa and northern Europe, even behind La Palma on the Spanish coast." More at Geophysical Research Letters (vol 28, p 3397) -- Tim C. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter