posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:39 AM
Wait?! This fellow has said Sydney will be hit with a 9.5 quake? The logistics on that alone is damn near improbable.
First we must understand Australia - Indo-Australian Plate
Ok for a full blown quake we'd have to have a plate rupture, now if we are having a plate rupture from my geo lessions i have heard that we (the
Australian people) will have more to worry about rather than a tsunami (IE, how our eastern seaboard just got turned into moltern slag).
Nextly if i read it a different way and "the tsunami will be generated from a 9.5 mag quake offshore, then the quake would originate just above New
Zealand (which means the northern island would get almost decimated, but that point aside), the tsunami size about the same of Fukismia should do it,
however it would need to cross 2223.72 km (about) or 1381.79 miles (about) for the American folk, which would mostly peter out before hitting the
Australian land fall, only causing an influx of surfers calling in sick.
The other scenario would be a plate rupture offshore, it would have to be HUGE (i'm talking it should in theory register abot 10.0 on the existing
scale) 'bang' the sea water would receed before lava pours out of the rupture, causing the proverbial explosive reaction to cause said tsunami (keep
in mind the plate we are sitting in is approximately 100km thick), so in theory to ge the energetic reaction we'd have approximately 2-3 days before
the wave hit landfall, and people would notice and evacuate.
All make sense?