Talk:Lituya Bay

Date?

There appears to be some difference in the date of the landslide from different sources - I've seen July 7th, July 8th, July 9th, and July 10th. Any ideas how we find out who is right? Average Earthman 12:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To my eye the authoritative sources give it as the 9th. Some confusion may be caused because it was the 10th GMT at the time, but that's not what should be given as the date. Anyways, I'm changing it. Blahaccountblah (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrected height

The article stated that the tsunami was "more than 300m high", which is vague. I've taken the actual value (524m / 1472ft) from the Guiness Book of Records. This value features on one of the reference articles as well. Mouse Nightshirt 12:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No what i think it means is that the wave when it was in the water was 300m(1000ft) high and then it sloshed a further 742ft up the mountain. Wiki235 18:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From the treeless area bordering the shore and the size of the mountains, it appears that the size of the wave has been enlarged. Such limits can be between 150-200 meters high (near 495-660 feet) on the slopes that contour the fjord. That slosh could be caused by a wave measuring at most only 100 meters high instead of 500 meters, which is surreal. This theory is sound in accordance to the size of the bay. The bay should be deeper in excess to have created a high wave.

False precision

It may well be that an exact 3m is 9.8', but one hardly thinks a troop of giants stood there with chain sticks and simultaneously concluded that the tide reached a maximum of 3m every time! That 3m is an order-of-measure figure, telling us that in general tides are closer to 3m than either 2m or less, or 4m or more. So why do you say it's 9.8', with the implication that it's closer to that than 9.7' or less or 9.9' or more? If that is true, that figure should be the baseline quoted first. However it's not, and it's an approximation into the bargain, so the real comparison should surely be to the nearest comparable-order significant-figure digit, namely one, making it 10'. The next one down would be 7', and up 13', were it relevant (which in this instance it is not). And so on throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.86.153 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Asteroid synthesis?

This bothered me as it reads as synthesis...unless it's directly tied to Dr. Mader's report/study but even so its spectulative nature remains suspect; equally I took out the "like a monolith, and so resembling an asteroid comparison earlier on. "Gee willikers, Uncle Fred, it's an asteroid, run for cover!" Anyway:

Measurable output parameters derived from mathematical modeling and analysis of the Lituya Bay event, adjusted for scale, can be applied to the calibration, verification and validation of asteroid models of tsunami generation. Based on measured parameters of inundation, speed, and water particle velocities of the giant 1958 Lituya Bay waves, coefficients of friction can be derived empirically which may be used to estimate more realistically attenuation over a land mass, of an asteroid-generated tsunami as it travels chaotically past the sea-land boundary.

Is this in Mader's report/study, or is this a Wiki editor's extrapolation on same? Synthesis either way. There's a lot of pseudo-science/gibberish here, too, or was - "solitary gravity waves" etc. (which I also took out). Gravity wave is an entirely different thing....sounds cool, but not relevant to an oceanic wave effect....Skookum1 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Superfluous but fancy-sounding adjectives adn adverbs jump out at me too - "as it travels chaotically past the sea-land boundary".....the "sea-land boundary" is otherwise known as a coastline, and in what other way is a wave going to travel - "orderly"? Redundancies and overblown non sequiturs abound....Skookum1 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this Mader study even here? It basically says "according to my model, the Lituya tsunami was possible". Sorry but it did happen regardless of anyone's model. Angry bee (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

General bad science

This article's importance really arose in the wake of a BBC Horizon program hypothesising a mega-tsunai based on the hypothesis that if a 2.5km-wide landslip containing some 120 cubic miles of rock on the west flank of La Palma, unkeyed from its base rock during an eruption in 1947, were to slide unstopped to the ocean floor, then the scoop effect might cause a similar tsunami around the Atlantic. However, it has not slid, despite another eruption in 1971 of the scale which the authors claimed would release it, nor has any subsequent sub-sea event substantiated the calculation. The most hypothetically comparable real event, the 1300km rupture in the Sumatra-Andaman Boxing Day 9 earthquake in 2004, displaced an estimated 7 cubic miles of rock at a very similar depth for a much longer time than the Las Palmas slide would, and produced significant waves nearby: but at a comparable distance to the crossing of the Atlantic hypothesised, the power of the waves diminished in proportion to the square of the distance from the incident, in accordance with the theory, and so by the time it reached Africa, a similar distance, it was nowhere near the scale claimed. Even scaling it up, by the time one applies the square rule, then the ripple would become a wave, not the 50m claimed but in the order of ten feet. Nor was there any indication of a "bounce" as claimed, in which the rebounding wave generates a secondary tsunami threatening Europe. There was a predictable interference effect as the wave passed around obstacles such as the tip of Sri Lanka and a number of island groups in the Indian ocean. More interestingly, a subsequent Royal Navy survey showed a number of very comparably sized landslides did occur on existing subsea thrust mounts. The similarly sized Japanese quake of 2011 caused waves of 8' in Oregon, a similar distance: the tidal rise on the American East Coast being some feet, and extreme wave heights comparable more, then the effect of any such event could depend on the exact weather state at the time: low tide and calm weather, nothing, high tise in a hurricane, a perfect storm - but nothing like the hysteria fluffed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.86.153 (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Errors in the above statement The eruption referred to occurred in 1949. The hypothesis that the writer refers to is based upon the WHOLE 25 kilometre flank of the Cumbre Vieja failing and the authors of that scenario - McGuire, Day et al state that their scenario is based upon the "Worst Case Scenario." The eruption in 1949 was active in three stages from three different sites - Duraznero, San Juan or Llano del Banco and Hoyo Negro and during that eruption a series of low intensity earthquakes occurred, but on or about 1st 2nd July 1949, two more powerful earthquakes occurred, their epicentre was estimated to be north of the town of Jedy. Routine investigations by Bonelli Rubio lead to the discovery of a new fracture which starts at the Duraznero vent, passes through the Hoyo Negro and changes its trend to the northwest. Day et al in 1999 reported that the fracture has a length of about 2.5 kilometres. The Sumatra earthquake generated a tsunami BECAUSE it lifted the water column approximately 40 metres on one side of the trench. It was generated by the subduction and overriding of the two plates concerned - not because a block dropped into the ocean. The INVERSE SQUARE RULE applies - this simply states that at doubling the distance reduces the field strength by half. As a rough estimate the East Coast of the USA is 5000 kilometres from La Palma, so if for example 1 million watts of energy was suddenly injected into the ocean at La Palma, by the time it reached the USA it would have reduced to 1 kilowatt - 1000 watts which would equate to about 3600000 Joules. However this is only an example and not anything like the actual energy that would be rammed into the ocean. The 1971 eruption occurred at a much lower altitude. Incidentally contrary to some reports the 1949 fracture is located wholly on the western flank and does not cross the summit ridge. If you want to know more contact me as the Cumbre Vieja is one of the volcanoes I monitor due to my work.The Geologist (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

IPA note

I just saw the IPA addition, which is for contemporary Alaskan English (Wasilla dialect or Juneau dialect, I wouldn't know LOL), but whatever the source langauge of the name is - Tlingit or Russian - that should be given too.Skookum1 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Glacier as the additional landslide-generator

The 1958 landslide occurred due to an earthquake, but the location of the landslide suggests that the part of the mountain that sled was looser than the rest of it due to erosion caused by the glacier below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.246.33 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

https://books.google.ae/books?id=9aE0qOyVNC4C&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=lituya+bay+glacial+erosion&source=bl&ots=GPIu1pGTmM&sig=t7ttXkNiQ8VEHtjtWAG9WWpxwCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI3YyUi-XKAhWGVRoKHdA5C4IQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=lituya%20bay%20glacial%20erosion&f=false (page 35) The regularity with which the phenomenon repeated itself every 22-60 years suggests that there existed (and possibly still exists) a working mechanism producing conditions for the same wave generation. Rockslides always occurred on the same spot (based on the wave damage on the forrests flanking the bay), precisely where the glacier meets the bay next to the rockslide generating mountain face. The one obvious force that is constantly present is the glacier ice movement that is slowly but constantly "sawing" the bottom of the mountain face creating new overhangs vulnerable to periodic earthquakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.40.17 (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Megatsunami Myth

Two eyewitness accounts exist, none of them estimate the wave to have been higher than 100 ft. The USGS report speculates it might have been 100-300 ft initially. The much-misunderstood 1,720 ft figure is how high water splashed on the mountain wall across the Gilbert Inlet immediately opposite the landslide, a horizontal distance of less than 5,000 ft. I suggest the "megatsunami" article be renamed and possibly expanded with a section on the myth. Captain Adhoc (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome new source, possibly only copy available on megatsunamis in the bay

Giant Waves in Lituya Bay, Alaska; USGS PP 354-C

http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/dutch/LituyaBay/Lituya0.HTM Fxmastermind (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, "new". You'll find a link to it in the very post above. Captain Adhoc (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation of place name

According to this: https://www.damninteresting.com/ten-minutes-in-lituya-bay/ the name means "lake within the point" rather than "no lake within". Is there a WP:RS available that can confirm or deny this? Autarch (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I was able to find a source confirming the "lake within the point" translation: ″Cenotaph Island divides the central part of the bay into two channels, two-fifths and four-fifths of a mile in width. Gilbert and Crill on Inlets extend northwestward and southeastward, respectively, from the head of the bay to form the upper part of the T, which in 1958 was about 3 miles long. The name "Lituya," according to Emmons ( 1911, p. 294), is a compound word in the Tlingit language meaning "the lake within the point," in reference to the nearly landlocked nature of the bay.″

Giant Waves in Lituya Bay Alaska By DON J. MILLER SHORTER. CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354-C http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0354c/report.pdf

The source the paper is quoting is: Emmons, G. T., 1911, Native account of the meeting between La Perouse and the Tlingit: Am. Anthropoiogist, n. ser.,v. 13, ],.1. 294-298. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1525/aa.1911.13.2.02a00080/asset/aa.1911.13.2.02a00080.pdf;jsessionid=F268C0A0C67460BAF6DDED174C9CD145.f04t02?v=1&t=iu2do9y6&s=d18ca788eb4c77c67e309b060d8fe5b8b50289df

Which confirms the quote. Myninerides (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lituya Bay. 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/20041123181612/http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/dutch/LituyaBay/Lituya0.HTM to http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/Dutch/LituyaBay/Lituya0.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311164047/http://web.mac.com/phfichetdelavault/ to http://web.mac.com/phfichetdelavault

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) 01:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)