|
Re: Q for Chris, JV, and ALL |
The heights mentioned are quite possibly "run-up" heights. That would be the distance above sea-level of the highest elevation contour line the water reached. I'm not sure how that relates to actual wave-height, but it's safe to say that there was nowhere a wave "face" of those heights (30 meters or 100 feet). In 1946 the Scotch Cap lighthouse on Unimak Island (Aleutians) was destroyed by a tsunami with a run-up height of 35 meters. In this case, the height was determined by noting wave damage at the top of a very sheer cliff. That wave may have actually been over 100 feet high. Though, still, not with the oft-imagined sheer/concave face. Mike Williams Follow Ups: ● Re: Q for Chris, JV, and ALL - Canie 22:54:09 - 8/24/2009 (75753) (1) ● Re: Q for Chris, JV, and ALL - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande 06:59:06 - 8/25/2009 (75754) (1) ● Re: Q for Chris, JV, and ALL - heartland chris 17:24:33 - 8/25/2009 (75756) (1) ● Re: Q for Chris, JV, and ALL - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande 06:52:20 - 8/26/2009 (75757) (1) ● Re: Q for Chris, JV, and ALL - PennyB 10:35:34 - 8/26/2009 (75758) (0) |
|