Talk:Meteotsunami
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
How is a meteotsunami related to...
editStorm surge? do they overlap? are they completely different? Is a meteotsunami a Seiche?Lacunae (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The clarification between Meteotsunami and seiche is very unclear from the article. From what I can find, it seems that a meteotsunami is simple a large seiche, but I can't find any source that says how large a seiche must be to be a meteotsunami. The Japanese article on seiche clearly says that abiki (referenced here as a synonym to meteotsunami) is simply the local name for a seiche on the Nagasaki Bay. Computermacgyver (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Usage of Ike
editI removed the photos and captions claiming that Ike's damages along the Bolivar Peninsula were due to a meteotsunami. Several researchers have studied the unique characteristics of the storm surge associated with Hurricane Ike, myself included, and none that I'm aware of have found that a meteotsunami was a primary driver. The talk here indicates that the claim is substantiated by a single amateur eyewitness account, making it dubious at best. Surge during Ike was due to a combination of a forerunner surge due to a shelf (or Ekman) wave and the classical driver of surge, local wind setup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.158 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- The "single amateur witness" is a primary witness whose account of the surge's behavior matches up perfectly with what is seen in the Haiyan surge video (in which winds have already lightened and wave-train pile-up abated somewhat as the eye moved overhead, and then ka-pow: the ocean heaves in like a locomotive and doesn't stop coming -- there is no way on earth that's "local wind set-up"). Take a closer look at the damage in those Ike photos: deep erosional scour and steel poles bent over all in a uniformly landward direction, etc). Regards the "several researchers", if you can find one who argues emphatically that this was not meteotsunamic behavior (and his argumentation takes into account the factors above), then I would be inclined to accept your edit, at least for the time being (even though I'd still think they were wrong).--Froglich (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- I can't really comment on Haiyan, as I've never investigated that storm. I did seen another researcher present that same video arguing that it was the result of powerful infra-gravity waves, instead. I really don't know. Anyway, even if the eyewitness account estimating the forward speed of the water were a reputable source, there remains the issue that there has been a plethora of other work looking at this event that has not found any evidence, nor need, to suggest a meteotsunami. In fact, a Google Scholar search doesn't give a single academic reference relating the two. So, I cannot provide a researcher arguing against the characterization, though there are many that have discussed the unique behavior of the surge profile during Ike, without reference to the possibility that a meteotsunami occurred. I've done work on this storm, too, but, here's a study that successfully used several different models to simulate Ike's surge, without any need for a meteotsunami. I just went back to look at gage records, there are 2 along the open coast, Galveston Pleasure Pier (8771510) and Galveston Bay Entrance North Jetty (8771341). The latter fails before the peak surge, but the former stays active and doesn't show any signs of a rapid spike in water level. I have the data on my computer, so don't have a link to it, but should be available from NOAA's tidesandcurrents website. Unfortunately, Pleasure Pier is on the south side of the entrance to Galveston Bay, so it's not quite the Bolivar Peninsula, but it is still close, about 9 km from the very center of the eye (based on the HurDAT best track), whereas the picture of that 1 surviving house is 28 km away. There's another gage, Rollover Pass, quite close to where those photos were taken, but it's also mostly missing data. If Ike had a track or forward speed that might imply it could excite a resonant mode to induce a meteotsunami, or anything of the sort, I'd at least agree the damage could be stated as possibly coming from one. But I just don't see any indication of the sort of phenomena necessary. I'll leave the page as-is for now, do please take a look and reconsider. I'd also argue that stating Ike had a meteotsunami based on the eyewitness account is original research, but that's another issue. Tfocker4 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm calling time on the storm surge/meteotsunami thing. I've questioned it and I see some others are as well. Even if meteotsunami happen every time that a hurricane makes landfall, they're not significant compared with normal storm surge and setup. Further, linking the two gives the readership the wrong idea, that meteotsunami are a hurricane phenomena, when in actuality they're common in the Great Lakes and Mediterranean Basin, and can happen without any hurricane being present (a fast moving squall line is a more reliable generator). Most of all, Monserrat et. al. (used as a source here) go out of their way to establish the differences between the two. And interpreting eyewitness accounts is OR, as given above. Geogene (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- You know what? I'm not going to argue -- I'm just going the predict that the next time a big-eye or 'super'-class TC moves in over flats, the exact same thing is going to happen again about 5-10 minutes after eye landfall: the ocean will jack up another 5'-10' almost instantaneously and surge laterally at 30mph in a sustained roar (causing 90% of the destruction and fatalities in a matter of moments), and all of you wavetrain-theory guys who resolutely ignore witness testimony will eat crow *again* (and for the last time, as said theory is finally plunged). So now we get to wait out the "hurricane drought" and see who's right.--Froglich (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't really have a stance on the cause of the damage during Ike. But, the research and data don't support a meteotsunami in this particular case, and "regular" waves are more than capable of doing the damage seen during Ike (given the magnitude and duration of the event). The USGS now deploys tons of sensors when an event is coming in, so events are captured with much greater precision now. So if this is happening, you're right that the data will show it. Though it is bound to be quite case-specific, given the need for resonant interactions between the pressure wave and bathymetry to generate a meteotsunami. Tfocker4 (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- You know what? I'm not going to argue -- I'm just going the predict that the next time a big-eye or 'super'-class TC moves in over flats, the exact same thing is going to happen again about 5-10 minutes after eye landfall: the ocean will jack up another 5'-10' almost instantaneously and surge laterally at 30mph in a sustained roar (causing 90% of the destruction and fatalities in a matter of moments), and all of you wavetrain-theory guys who resolutely ignore witness testimony will eat crow *again* (and for the last time, as said theory is finally plunged). So now we get to wait out the "hurricane drought" and see who's right.--Froglich (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm calling time on the storm surge/meteotsunami thing. I've questioned it and I see some others are as well. Even if meteotsunami happen every time that a hurricane makes landfall, they're not significant compared with normal storm surge and setup. Further, linking the two gives the readership the wrong idea, that meteotsunami are a hurricane phenomena, when in actuality they're common in the Great Lakes and Mediterranean Basin, and can happen without any hurricane being present (a fast moving squall line is a more reliable generator). Most of all, Monserrat et. al. (used as a source here) go out of their way to establish the differences between the two. And interpreting eyewitness accounts is OR, as given above. Geogene (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't really comment on Haiyan, as I've never investigated that storm. I did seen another researcher present that same video arguing that it was the result of powerful infra-gravity waves, instead. I really don't know. Anyway, even if the eyewitness account estimating the forward speed of the water were a reputable source, there remains the issue that there has been a plethora of other work looking at this event that has not found any evidence, nor need, to suggest a meteotsunami. In fact, a Google Scholar search doesn't give a single academic reference relating the two. So, I cannot provide a researcher arguing against the characterization, though there are many that have discussed the unique behavior of the surge profile during Ike, without reference to the possibility that a meteotsunami occurred. I've done work on this storm, too, but, here's a study that successfully used several different models to simulate Ike's surge, without any need for a meteotsunami. I just went back to look at gage records, there are 2 along the open coast, Galveston Pleasure Pier (8771510) and Galveston Bay Entrance North Jetty (8771341). The latter fails before the peak surge, but the former stays active and doesn't show any signs of a rapid spike in water level. I have the data on my computer, so don't have a link to it, but should be available from NOAA's tidesandcurrents website. Unfortunately, Pleasure Pier is on the south side of the entrance to Galveston Bay, so it's not quite the Bolivar Peninsula, but it is still close, about 9 km from the very center of the eye (based on the HurDAT best track), whereas the picture of that 1 surviving house is 28 km away. There's another gage, Rollover Pass, quite close to where those photos were taken, but it's also mostly missing data. If Ike had a track or forward speed that might imply it could excite a resonant mode to induce a meteotsunami, or anything of the sort, I'd at least agree the damage could be stated as possibly coming from one. But I just don't see any indication of the sort of phenomena necessary. I'll leave the page as-is for now, do please take a look and reconsider. I'd also argue that stating Ike had a meteotsunami based on the eyewitness account is original research, but that's another issue. Tfocker4 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Meteotsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716100504/http://ioc3.unesco.org/itic/files/tsunami_glossary_small.pdf to http://ioc3.unesco.org/itic/files/tsunami_glossary_small.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721221037/http://ioc3.unesco.org/neamtws/documents/presentations/Meteotsunami_NEAMTWS_Nice.pdf to http://ioc3.unesco.org/neamtws/documents/presentations/Meteotsunami_NEAMTWS_Nice.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
2022 Hunga Tonga eruption and tsunami (15 January 2022): long-distance effect in Caribbean. Reply to the revert
edit@Farscot: about the revert of my contribution you made today here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meteotsunami&type=revision&diff=1066232115&oldid=1066129696 with the following comment:
- "A meteotsunami is specifically caused by weather conditions, so a volcanic event does not belong on this list".
I basically agree with the content of your remark. However, if the fact is proven, it is difficult to understand a so long distance effect of the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption and tsunami as claimed by the article cited in reference, and given again hereafter for the convenience of the discussion:
- Erik Klemetti (2022-01-15). "Major blast in Tonga create tsunami and heavy ash fall". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
So, one can only envisage two possibilities:
- First, the interpretation of this article is wrong, and there exists no relation between the two events: it is a pure coincidence.
- Second, there could still exist a relation via the weak atmospheric pressure wave sent around the globe by this huge volcanic explosion. In this case, a rare and atypical but weak meteotsunami could well have been produced at very long distance via the atmosphere pressure drop. I agree that is was probably the viewpoint of the author of the article and not a well established fact underpined by a detailed scientific report.
What do you think about that ? See also the discussion about that on the talk page of 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption and tsunami: here: Talk:2022_Hunga_Tonga_eruption_and_tsunami#Minor_tsunami_in_the_Gulf_of_Mexico,_the_Carribbean,_and_Puerto_Rico??????. What is your opinion? Maybe you could also join the discussion on this talk page. It was this discussion that triggered my edit here on meteotsunami. I am not a specialist in this field, so any explanation that could contribute to increase our understanding on this possible but rare and unexpected phenomenon is welcome. Thanks for your answer. Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
One more quite intriguing message released by the NWS Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Honolulu:
- NWS PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER HONOLULU (15 January 2022). "THE TONGA VOLCANIC EXPLOSION HAS GENERATED SMALL TSUNAMI WAVES THAT ARE NON-THREATENING IN THE CARIBBEAN BASIN". web.archive.org. Retrieved 17 January 2022..
Original message still accessible at tsunami.gov, here:
https://www.tsunami.gov/events/PHEB/2022/01/15/22015050/1/WECA43/WECA43.txt
What do you think about this official message? How to explain it? Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's a list of examples, not a complete list of all meteotsunami events (which are fairly common). Geogene (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Shinkolobwe: Interesting topic, and here's my reasoning:- In the Discover article that you reference, it says 'There might even have been a "meteo-tsunami" in the Caribbean generated by the pressure wave in the atmosphere'. That, for me, is not a definite enough statement to include the event in a list of meteotsunamis. For now, it seems more like a research topic and someone's opinion rather than a confirmed fact. However, after reading more about this, my definition of a meteotsunami being caused by weather may not be entirely right, if any pressure change in the atmosphere (however caused) can be deemed to be a meteorological event. So, if someone publishes proof that these small sea level rises in the Caribbean are caused the pressure wave from the volcanic blast, then yes, I agree they would be meteotsunamis. Farscot (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Farscot: Thanks for your answer and your view on this phenomenon. I agree that to be established as a robust and verified fact, it requires a detailed scientific study on the phenomenon accompanied by a publication in a scientific journal. BBC News or The Guardian also mentioned today observations made in East Anglia in the UK of an atmospheric pressure surge wave making two times the turn of the world. I could not easily find again the reference of this article, so hereafter another one from Norfolklive. Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Shinkolobwe: Interesting topic, and here's my reasoning:- In the Discover article that you reference, it says 'There might even have been a "meteo-tsunami" in the Caribbean generated by the pressure wave in the atmosphere'. That, for me, is not a definite enough statement to include the event in a list of meteotsunamis. For now, it seems more like a research topic and someone's opinion rather than a confirmed fact. However, after reading more about this, my definition of a meteotsunami being caused by weather may not be entirely right, if any pressure change in the atmosphere (however caused) can be deemed to be a meteorological event. So, if someone publishes proof that these small sea level rises in the Caribbean are caused the pressure wave from the volcanic blast, then yes, I agree they would be meteotsunamis. Farscot (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whitehouse, Ellis. "Hunga Tonga volcano eruption felt in Norfolk as atmospheric pressure surges". Norfolklive. Retrieved 18 January 2022.