This is not so much about the environment, but about the state of science and its reporting.
Last night I watched a doco on a tsunami that was supposed to have happened in the Cro-Magnon era of human existence in the Mediteranean.
Seems a slab of Etna on Sciliy may have slid down and sent out a wave a 100' high that washed the East shores clear.
And I recall a similar recent progamme about the Caanry Islands whereby the US eastern seaboard is soon to be wiped out.
Now, I am all for awarness and preparation, but I do rather wonder what, other than getting some worried, such as the latter really achieves.
But I also wonder about the science. In both shows, the most telling demo is when a slab of material is rushed down a slope in a lab to impact a model of a water feature. Sure enough, by the end a dirty great wave was impacting the other end.
Thing is, whilst accpeting the sheer power of the forces, but I do have to wonder about the relative sizes we're talking about here. A small section of an island in an entire ocean does not seem comparable. Nor does the 'route' being a narrow channel constrained by perspex. The energy disapation in a radial manner over tens of thousands of square miles would surely absorb a heck of a lot?
However, when an entire undersea shelf drop/rise over multiple miles takes place, as it did with the Boxing Day tragedy, that is a different kettle of fish.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.