Iceberg Tsunami Gone Wild Greenland July 19/2012 (Video)

Right place, Right time?

Right place, Wrong time?

Wrong place, Wrong time?

Wrong place, Right time?

You decide...

For me...The most incredible place to be at the perfect moment.

Peace

Wow, lucky he got out of the way, for the most part.

One thing that is interesting about that, is the short time it took for the water to stabilize after the waves. And at most two bigger primary waves, and not much of anything after that.

I am relating this of course to what would happen if Cumbre Vieja at La Palma gave way, although that could be on a vastly larger scale, by orders of magnitudes. Looks like one massive wave, followed by another smaller, then pretty much clear. But at CV that massive wave could start out as high as 700 feet or more, depending on how much of the cliff gave way.

But that'll learn ya to get too close to an iceberg!

Another thing is while the speed of the main wave was fast, it wasn't quite as fast as we are lead to expect from literature on tsunamis. I mean they talk that tsunamis can move at up to 700 km/hr or more in deep ocean. That wave in the video seemed it was moving more like at 60-100 km/hr, but it would be cool to know for sure from a video analysis.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

But that'll learn ya to get too close to an iceberg!

Yup, Mother Nature can be a real B**ch when she wants to be. We're only guests in her house.

Peace

I could tell like 15 seconds before it was going to fall that he should probably start moving his boat at full speed in the opposite direction... this guy want the perfect shot at risk of sinking in the freezing cold water?

that said maybe i'm just cynical I can see how it's an amazing shot and no harm was done from it.

Icebergs are crazy. and the fact it's breaking off like that says something like maybe we have cut too many trees combined with too much pollution at the same time the sun grows bigger with a more likely heat output and rapid change in the atmosphere.. bye ice.

Originally posted by yourmaker
I could tell like 15 seconds before it was going to fall that he should probably start moving his boat at full speed in the opposite direction... this guy want the perfect shot at risk of sinking in the freezing cold water?

that said maybe i'm just cynical

I can see how it's an amazing shot and no harm was done from it.

Icebergs are crazy. and the fact it's breaking off like that says something like maybe we have cut too many trees combined with too much pollution at the same time the sun grows bigger with a more likely heat output and rapid change in the atmosphere.. bye ice.

True, it is Greenland and a place to watch for what is happening to our World.

But, still a great shot.

Peace

reply to post by TrueAmerican


That's the difference between a wave created from the top to the bottom, like this one, and one created from the bottom to the top, like what happens with earthquakes and real tsunamis.

S+F dude! It's a wild video for sure but I think a lot more people should be worried about the consequences of all this ice melting. Here in the Ottawa valley, Canada, we've had no rain to speak of since May and it has been over 100F 36 C a lot. Very strange weather. This valley is east of the great lakes so climate should be very normal with plenty of rain. When you consider Ottawa Ontario is on par with Moscow in position, it just shouldn't be this hot and dry.
[Other simularities too, Between Ottawa and Moscow, but that would be off topic ]
If you find any info on an accelerated rate of melting, I'd love to see it, because I'll bet it was 85 in the arctic lately.
To me that means more quakes world-wide next year, as the weight of the water moves south, but TA might know more about those effects than me.

reply to post by jude11


That would be one of those moments it would be difficult to describe...

90% scared 10% excited or 90% excited and 10% scared.

What a cool video though.

Thanks for sharing, S&F.

Pred...

reply to post by jude11


Wow !!!


Just so powerful, and that was such a small fraction of Ice, breaking off. Then you here of pieces the size of Manhattan, and you wonder what force, is generated by that .

Thank you very much for sharing, Jude.....





S&F

Right place. Right time.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

That's the difference between a wave created from the top to the bottom, like this one, and one created from the bottom to the top, like what happens with earthquakes and real tsunamis.

Well actually what matters the most is the amount of water volume displaced in the action, whether by quake or glacier- or asteroid for that matter. And a large part of that is dependent on the velocity, mass, and density of the object hitting the water. Had that been a rock faced wall, instead of ice, those people would probably of have been killed. The wave would have been probably two to three times higher, given the exact same amount of rock, instead of ice, falling from the same height.

The reason: density. Rock is approximately two to three times more dense than ice. And had that been rock, it would have displaced a whole lot more water. With nowhere else to go, UP is where that water goes, as well as increased velocity vertically and laterally.

What is truly scary to think about is that in the case of Cumbre Vieja, the massive failing rock face is a mixture of volcanic rock types that all have two to three times the density of ice. And the potential volume of the massive cliff that could collapse dwarfs what we see here. Much higher, much bigger, much more dense.

If the whole thing were to collapse at once, (very unlikely) you can imagine, just from that little bit of ice that fell, what kind of waves CV could produce. Lituya Bay is an example, although there are major differences in water depths and shapes of the affected areas, and that can have an effect too. LB is about 220 meters deep whereas the base of the island of La Palma is more like 4000 meters deep. LB is also a bay, which concentrated the massive 1,720 ft wave up the slopes. Whereas at CV/LP, there would be no such concentration, but there is a lot more water volume that can move.

About the highest quake-generated tsunami will get is 200 ft in a worst case scenario, but as we know, the volume of water behind it could be so great that height in that case doesn't matter as much as the incredible volume of water that follows. It just keeps coming. So what's worse, a 100 ft quake-generated tsunami, or a 1,000 ft landslide generated tsunami? That ought to keep some curious brains working for a few.

reply to post by jude11


If that wave would've been much bigger, it could have possibly ended up being


'Right place. Right time. Wrong Dam Boat!! We Need A Bigger Boat!!!"

reply to post by TrueAmerican

So what's worse, a 100 ft quake-generated tsunami, or a 1,000 ft landslide generated tsunami?

I don't think it matters if you are close enough to be looking up at either one.

Peace

Originally posted by Phage
Right place. Right time.

Phage this is a side of you have not seen before... Rock on dude!

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well actually what matters the most is the amount of water volume displaced in the action, whether by quake or glacier- or asteroid for that matter.

When something happens below the water, the volume displaced affects all the water above it, so instead of a 10 metres wave (for example), you have a column of water equal to the depth at which the displace occurred, so there's much more energy involved.

And a large part of that is dependent on the velocity, mass, and density of the object hitting the water.

If we are talking about water displacement then I would think volume would be the most important, what difference does mass and density make?

The reason: density. Rock is approximately two to three times more dense than ice. And had that been rock, it would have displaced a whole lot more water

Why?

If the whole thing were to collapse at once, (very unlikely) you can imagine, just from that little bit of ice that fell, what kind of waves CV could produce. Lituya Bay is an example, although there are major differences in water depths and shapes of the affected areas, and that can have an effect too. LB is about 220 meters deep whereas the base of the island of La Palma is more like 4000 meters deep. LB is also a bay, which concentrated the massive 1,720 ft wave up the slopes. Whereas at CV/LP, there would be no such concentration, but there is a lot more water volume that can move.

And what was the result of that gigantic wave when it reached Hawaii? It was just some centimetres high.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo

Originally posted by Phage
Right place. Right time.

Phage this is a side of you have not seen before...

Rock on dude!

I know!

Someone must be at Phage's keyboard...

Peace

reply to post by jude11


at first when it fell I was like I wonder if it will get to where they are on the boat. Then I was like omg they better get moving !!

Then I was hoping they would make it out without capsizing...

They were about 3-4 seconds away from having their boat filled with water....

If he left any later...wow they are lucky.

reply to post by jude11


S&F that was worth watching. Scary. They were lucky they weren't closer.

Originally posted by Phage
Right place. Right time.

First off, OP, thanks for sharing that vid was pretty cool I felt like the wave was comin right at me! But this just took the same phenomenon to a whole new level. That ish was rad. That guy absolutely seized the moment by the juggular, then ripped it out and chugged the blood. Hes a raw ill sav.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Waves caused by earthquakes and landslides (or ice-slides) are completely different. A wave caused by a massive seismic shift can indeed reach a speed of that similar to a commercial jetliner. That's how the Boxing Day Tsunami was able to cross the Indian Ocean in six hours.

Waves from landslides can actually create bigger (taller waves). A landslide in Lituya Bay in Alaska in 1958 created a wave 1700 feet tall when the landslide was contained with a kind of fjord. That wave quickly depleted when it hit the open sea (although not before destroying forests some 7 miles from the epicentre!).