Tsunami Warning West US, Alaska, Canada

FYI
Sirens going off in Homer Alaska now. Folks being moved to higher ground.
All West Coast US, Alaska, Canada
Wave estimated impact time posted online
Don't know where to post it.

I'm 256 feet elevation & way up Cook Inlet, so no warning here.

was just watching it on TV dave and its bad for sure...


http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/tsunami.warning/index.html


loon

The news this moring had said that a Nuclear plant lost its cooling water. Hope they got the reactor shut down.

So what did you get for a wave in AK? Sure it was bad in Japan and Hawaii saw something noticable, maybe AK got more? Better be a good wave to get you all out of bed so late at night.

When I looked out back this morning
my woodshed was still 3/4 full.
Big earth quakes due in AK & Cal you just never know when.
TV pics show real powerful wave in Japan.
Sunny day, no wind, Hint of Spring

Who builds nuc-u-lar reactors on top of the junction of THREE TECTONIC PLATE BOUNDARIES. All bets are off at that point.

Looks real bad, looks like the cooling systems are failing in two different plants, not good.


Zap

BG We were just watching a film that likened the cascadia subduction zone to the one that that triggered the 2004 Sumatra quake just before it took place.

That's pretty cool to me 3,000 miles away.

As for the melt affecting the plates-I'm not a geologist, but I don't think so. The increased weight might have a small impact on dense oceanic crusts as they sink under continental crusts. Just a guess though.

Things have gone from really bad to really worse. Reactor #1 exploded.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/121...clear-reactor-fukushima-possible-meltdown.htm

There's an interesting link to the supermoon event coming March 19th. I can see the moon's gravity having an effect on the floating plates of the Earth. We've discovered weirder things.

I think they said one was built in 1971 and thats the one that blew up

Its not likely to have much of an immediate effect. There will probably be a certain amount of isostatic rebound associated with the melting, where the continental crust rises from there being less ice weighing it down. From our perspective it might be millimeters per year. Both the Antarctic and Greenland land masses aren't on any major plate boundaries, but they are somewhat close to divergent plate boundaries, where plates spread apart and new oceanic is created.

Well, its not my specific background, but I did have to take a graduate course in tectonics when getting my graduate degree. My thoughts are.. perhaps, but perhaps not. The article didn't mention plate tectonics, but if there is some sort of effect, I think it wouldn't be noticeable for generations. Tectonic activity is typically driven by forces beneath the plates (convection currents from the mantle) rather than forces above them. I think the most significant impact from dumping gigatons of cold, fresh water into the oceans, other than the obvious sea level changes, would be climate change due to the disruption of warmer water currents that help determine weather patterns.

As a geology/hydrology professor I know once said at the end of a long, complicated talk "well, that's science for you.."

Who is going to benefit from a warmer earth? 120,000 years ago it was about 1.5 degrees C warmer. I wonder what NH was like then. I wouldn't mind warmer Winters, but damn it if I want a bunch of Bostonians trying to muscle in to my state!

Warmer winters in New England might just mean a longer mud season