> I'm surprised so many people don't understand what tsunamis are.
“I’m Surprised so many people don’t know what ‘X’ is/are isn’t a very nice thing to say. Your comment could have done without that, the rest of it would have been fine.
“I’m Surprised so many people don’t know what ‘X’ is/are isn’t a very nice thing to say. Your comment could have done without that, the rest of it would have been fine.
Saying that tsunamis are waves is easy to equivocate into tsunamis are waves, like other waves. This is an equivocation that is very misleading and can get people killed.
Insofar as the goal of communication is to communicate meaningful information, it is less accurate to say “tsunamis are waves” than it is to say “tsunamis are nothing like normal waves”, or to say “tsunamis are like a wall of water, not like a wave” or “tsunamis are more like tides than waves”.
So yes, tsunamis are waves, but insisting that tsunamis are waves without qualification that their effective characteristics are fundamentally much different and more dangerous than a regular wave is misleading through omission in a way that could directly put people’s lives in jeopardy.
Being pedantic about definitions and being accurate in conveying meaning are not the same thing, and communicating in good faith normally is about conveying meaning in an accurate manner, not just using words in an accurate manner.
FWIW I also believe that meanings are important, but there is a point where pedantry falls into bad-faith territory.
You’re like coming up to me and saying hurricane is not wind because it’s dangerous to think of a hurricane as only wind.
Dude. Nobody is thinking hurricanes are just chill just because hurricanes are wind. This is a fucking non-issue.
I think what you’re trying to say is that the wave length of a tsunami is much longer than the amplitude even though the amplitude is still epically high. But don’t try to conflate this with a safety issue of people dying because somebody called it a “wave” that’s just garbage.
Everyone knows hurricanes are wind. So they look for the wind speed to understand the threat. And it’s effective at characterizing the threat. A 100mph wind is going to be similarly destructive as any other 100mph wind. It works and is semantically and linguistically accurate.
Everyone knows a tsunami is a wave, and it is a strong intuition to believe that a wave is defined by its height. , and the height of the tsunami is actually one of the most widely reported metrics. But intuition about the effects of a tsunami by wave height is dangerously wrong. A tsunami is not at all similar to the vast, vast majority of waves in character and effect. Its speed and length at way, way out of band, and are seldom reported.
1. the storm surge, the potential wall of water brought by the continuous winds and waves near the shore, followed by 2. the flooding from heavy rains, then 3. followed by the wind.
So your example might also be hitting the same issue you're trying to avoid.
Note, the worst storm surge is from the eye towards the side where the winds are blowing in the direction of the shore. That's only part of the area with the peak winds.
That said, in context the original statement was so extremely misrepresentative of the reality that I felt it left the realm of "inaccurate but effective for communication". I certainly didn't see the objections as pedantic.
Perhaps it wasn’t intentionally pedantic, but the way that it was doubled down on later makes me suspect an argument in bad faith, or at least an epic case of missing the opportunity to usefully inform.
I value this site for the general character of people trying to educate more than just troll, and I think it’s important to try to educate trolls as well to understand a more constructive and respectful way to interact here. Ostensibly, we take off our clown shoes and leave them at the door.
OTOH I may have read multiple comments in similar tone that were not all attributed to one poster , giving me a mistaken impression of the intent. In that case, I owe an apology for perhaps overreacting.
The most obvious (but relatively rare) are tsunamis amplified by submarine canyons and other coastal bathymetry like the Nazare submarine canyon famous for the biggest waves on the planet (50+ footers are common in season). If an earthquake directs a tsunami at that canyon, the resulting waves will be spectacular and probably drown everything north of the cliffs. Unfortunately we don’t have any historical records about what happened at Nazare after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake so we don’t know just how big those waves can get.
Then there’s landslides like the one that caused the 1958 tsunami in Lituya Bay, Alaska which creates a much more sudden displacement than an earthquake. Based on the surrounding mountainsides the wave created from that landslide might have peaked at ~500 meters without the 100+ mile wavelength you’d see in a normal tsunami wave.
The most common however are tidal bores, which can send a 30+ foot vertical wave down rivers and narrow channels. This phenomenon shows up relatively frequently in earthquake youtube videos near rivers, though the wall is usually only 5-10 ft tall.
An entertaining anecdote from the pre- smartphone era:
I sailed to the site near Chenega bay where the earthquake wiped out the village in 1958. We got permission from the elders at the Chenega bay village to land at the island, and it was extremely humbling to see the high water mark from the coastline, and to see the wreckage of boats far, far up on mountainsides.
I’m not a big believer in supernatural stuff, and there are plenty of alternative explanations, but it still freaks me out a bit that the photos we took (aside from the digital ones) did not develop any images of the village site. It was white as if it had been overexposed, even in the case of 1/2 frames. On both disposable cameras. Other photos from the same day, taken in other directions, turned out fine. The digital camera fell overboard in 500 fathoms, so we lost those photos the next day.
As for how exactly this could happen in any reasonable version of events, I’ve got nothing. I guess sometimes chance events line up just right to make for a good story.
Interestingly, there are big tidal bores frequently in Turnagain arm, with 1-3m being common. I’ve seen people surfing it with wetsuits in the ice cold water, getting a run of several miles lol.
That’s going on the bucket list! How dangerous is it? If you biff it and get caught by the wave can you just dive under the wavefront and come up behind it like on a beach?
At any rate, there was enough people willing to try that I saw it a couple of times, and TBF I think windsurfing isn’t too unusual in the arm now. But there is also trees and stuff in the tidal bores sometimes, so maybe debris is a big problem or the area is too shallow to be safe.
But, if it’s doable, I’m sure it would be memorable!