last tsunami warning we had, the road up the range was gridlockaccidents in the street etc...was not long after the Indonesian one so the terror was fresh in many's minds.
This morning my daughter and I went into town to watch the ski boat races and go for a swim all at 2 foot above high tide, I deliberately didn't tell my wife of this new warning to save on pre trip anxiety but I got the phone call an hour later
Has it touched our east coast yet?
cheers fnq
Yes there is a means of telling with in reason what the effects of a tsunami will be on the east coast of Australia.
With the history of past activity,
What has the effect on the Australian east coast been?
With information on current activity compared to past, what is the likely effect.?
What is the consiquence of the likely effect?
We are talking of basic risk assessment principles.
An the answer is basicly, low and diddly squat.
When wave front in NZ is forcast to be 200mm to a meter....and they are considerably more exposed than we are.
On most of the east coat the effects of this "tsunami wave" is likly to be undetectable in normal sea conditions.
If I was doing a formal risk assessment on a days boating, this tsunami warning would rank below slipping on the boat ramp or banging my knee on the tow ball in risks to be mitigated.
It greatly degrades the value of all disaster warnings.
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
Totally agree - much better to have the warnings than none ....... better safe than sorry - hey
chris
Give a man a fish & he will eat for a day !
Teach him how to fish
& he will sit in a boat - & drink beer all day!
TEAM MOJIKO
Very true with the lack of "grip" society has on even the basics today, one needs a 1 to 20 terror ranking to be part and parcel of any Authoritatively given warning's or advice's.....Originally Posted by oldboot
And yes it does degrade all and sundry but entirely par for the course these days, the heightening of fear to control is power until it becomes recognised as commonplace.
cheers fnq
lol so I take it that you old boys will be carrying on as normal, until you are evacuated?
I'm surprised at the attitudes of a lot of the longer term members here. It's already been said that if a warning wasn't given and damage or loss of life ensued, there would be an almighty outcry. I don't know what you expect the authorities to do. I know I would rather the warning, then make my own call on what steps I will take, rather than no warning at all.
A tsunami doesn't have to be high to do a hell of a lot of damage. In fact they rarely are high. They have a huge amount of weight behind them and just keep coming in, like a little wave that just doesn't stop. The effect here will depend on how much the energy dissipates as it travels across the ocean.
Seriously though, if you don't like the warnings, don't listen to them, but quit whinging about them, some of us like to be informed about things that could possibly pose a threat to us.
Dave.
I'm with Dave.
It was given as a marine warning, no mention of it ever inundating the coastline. Mention was made of possible strong currents, larger than normal waves, higher tides and possible surges. At no stage was there a mention of evacuation anywhere.
But I'm sure the old boy's on here knew all of that with their vast experience of these kind of events.
Do you boy's also whinge and moan when the strong wind warning doesn't come through as predicted?! (Or when it does out of the blue)
Nigelr,
LOL! and even then resist the urge!
cheers fnq
I reckon the warning was fair enough. Not everything about generation and behaviour of tsunamis is known.
Have a look at this http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquak...quakes_all.php
There has been approximately 80 aftershocks - all were quite large.
Hands up all those who will ignore any future tsunami warnings as being a crock of shit??
Would it be you same people with the raised hands that the SES would be rescuing if one did eventuate?
For my part i take every warning seriously.
The tsunami that hit Indonesia two years ago and later the one that flattened parts of Bangladesh, for the locals there it was an ordinary day until about 15 minutes before the impact, some residents noticed the waters receding. Does that sound too far fetched to be true??
Nobody can predict earthquakes or tidal waves with any form of accuracy, why knock the warning service that is there to make everybody alert to a present danger? It could have been inundating for lower areas yes, but turned out to be not.
I did notice the high tide peaked about a full hour later than predicted where i was.
Jack.
with all due respect that is an ill considered and unreasonabl statement.
Indonesia, bangladesh and the " pacific rim of fire" have a long and regular history of very bad irregular tidal incidents....it is a very active area.
The structure of islands and ocean lay out tend to contain the energy in those areas.
These major asian disasters have been a result of a quake or disturbance several hundred miles away.... in relativly close proximity
The chilli quake is many thousands of miles away.
A properly considered tsunami warning definitely has some meaning.....what happens up there has very little to do with the east coast of australia.
no body is even trying to predict earth quakes in this matter.
they are saying there is an earth quake half way arround the world......they are warning you of a possible disaster where none has occured from similar conditions in the past.
there is no question of the SES having to do a single thing from this ill concieved and unreasonable "warning"
If a Tsunami is going to have disasterous proportions for you.... the best you can hope for is a couple of hours warning.
If I was in darwin or the north, and heard a warning that there was a quake or eruption in the islands too the north.....I would be taking the warning very seriously and be heading for high ground.
but on the east coast... from a smallish quake in chille......come on get real.
If it was a real tidal disaster... like several meters of wave.....I'm not the one who will need helping........the damage will be massive... beyond anything you could think about.
Lets keep warnings for when they are needed or a disaster could reasonably be expected.
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
These old boys would be whinging an moaning about getting a root...
There is nothing wrong with tunaticer comments, in fact I have the same opinion as he....
Would it be correct to say that you know more about earth quakes and tsunamis then a group off seismologist and the BOM???..
I am surprised by how critical many on this site are of the warnings. I never read any mention of a 'disaster warning', only a marine warning. No mention of land inundation or evacuation. I live on Bribie Island which is quite low in elevation and I read nothing that made me think I needed to go anywhere. The earthquake in Chile was actually quite a large one, so I decided not to go boating. I for one am happy for the 'heads up' and would rather err on the side of caution. My thoughts and prayers are with the hundreds of people that have been killed or affected by this earthquake.
Was down the pin at the time the tsunami was supposed to hit. Was fishing around the tip of crusoe. The tide was running pretty quickly and lots of surge hitting the banks of the island, also pretty big around all the dead trees near swan bay i think it is? Though having never been down here before dont know if its usual to see this kind of tidal activity there or not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote