posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:52 AM
Rock, with three undergraduate courses, none of which were marine or seismology, I am certainly not going to enter a urinary olympiad -- especially
with folks who do this for a living.
And I certainly believe any stories about a Harbor Wave with a one-hundred-meter-high runup are bogus.
However, If you look at long-frequency terms, such a tsunami is possible if not probable within the short term (say 100 years). Look
at Lisbon in 1755, and the Maritimes tsunami this century (oops, I mean last century! The 1900's, anyway.).
One other thing I read about that might be worth noting: the post-glaciation rebound phenomenon.
I'm sure you're aware that millennia of glaciation can actually compress the land under its weight, and, after the glaciers melt, the land begins to
rebound (although it does so slowly; we are talking geology here).
I think there's a lot of evidence, from the Laurentian Mountains in Quebec and Ontario all the way down to Chesapeake Bay, of ongoing geological
rebound after the melting of the Pleistocene glaciers.
If the current thinning of the arctic ice-pack in Greenland continues, what kind of rebound-driven earthquakes can we expect a couple of thousand
years from now?