HanKFranK
User
Reged:
Posts: 1841
Loc: Graniteville, SC
|
|
the question of why bangladesh didn't suffer a tremendous loss of life is nagging at mind. the tsunami should have propagated up there, and the country is very low lying (multiple tropical cyclones have killed thousands there). there must be some kind of bathymetric feature that prevented it from ramping onshore at significant height... most other coastlines it reached at that range had a more significant event.
HF 0456z31december
|
LI Phil
User
Reged:
Posts: 2637
Loc: Long Island (40.7N 73.6W)
|
|
Quote:
the question of why bangladesh didn't suffer a tremendous loss of life is nagging at mind. the tsunami should have propagated up there, and the country is very low lying (multiple tropical cyclones have killed thousands there). there must be some kind of bathymetric feature that prevented it from ramping onshore at significant height... most other coastlines it reached at that range had a more significant event.
HF 0456z31december
HF, no offense meant, but you almost sound like you're kind of bummed about it. Be grateful Bangladesh was spared...they lost 300K+ in a typhoon in 1970, so they get a free pass with this event.
On the last day of 2004, think about ALL the wierd and wild weather we (as a nation and world) endured this year. US broke the record for most twisters ever, four major landfalling hurricanes, earthquakes & volcanoes across the world, and now the tsunami...almost makes one think there's something being called "global warming" going on...Let us all hope and pray we never, ever, have a repeat of this year.
Sorry for the bummer tone of the post, but I for one will be glad to see 2005...and on that note...
--------------------
2005 Forecast: 14/7/4
BUCKLE UP!
"If your topic ain't tropic, your post will be toast"
|
Keith(234)
Unregistered
|
|
This may not be a wave, but the river of sorrow-otherwise known as the Yellow River (I believe Huang He), killed 3.7 million in China from flooding. So since the wave kills by flooding, and that event killed by flooding too it is not the most deadilest event.
|
LI Phil
User
Reged:
Posts: 2637
Loc: Long Island (40.7N 73.6W)
|
|
Keith,
It is the DEADLIEST TSUNAMI. I never said it was the deadliest weather event. K?
Happy New Year...
--------------------
2005 Forecast: 14/7/4
BUCKLE UP!
"If your topic ain't tropic, your post will be toast"
|
Bloodstar
Moderator
Reged:
Posts: 467
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
don't know if it'll amount to anything but the does have one up for the southern hemisphere. 
--------------------
M. S. Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech - May 2020
NOAA MADIS/HADS Programmer
U. Arizona PhD Student
|
Bloodstar
Moderator
Reged:
Posts: 467
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
Quote:
the question of why bangladesh didn't suffer a tremendous loss of life is nagging at mind. the tsunami should have propagated up there, and the country is very low lying (multiple tropical cyclones have killed thousands there). there must be some kind of bathymetric feature that prevented it from ramping onshore at significant height... most other coastlines it reached at that range had a more significant event.
HF 0456z31december
IIRC: evidently after the massive typhoon they had, the government there put up these massive wave bafflers in front of villages and towns, which broke up the wave and prevented it from having the impact that we're seeing in other countries... the source was from cnn.com so I'll look to see if i can find the link to the article.
-Mark
|
Keith(234)
Unregistered
|
|
Got you loud and clear, just was saying what I read in Newsday. HAPPY NEW YEAR! Can't wait till' 2005!
|
MikeC
Admin
Reged:
Posts: 4635
Loc: Orlando, FL
|
|
Farewell 2004, the 2004 forums are now closed.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
