[QUOTE=chalsall;243489]Not everyone... Many who died in 2004 actually walked out onto the suddenly exposed seabed to investigate "this interesting phenomenon"!

Evolution in action?[/QUOTE]

Indeed. But I was referring to the simple observation that the
water in front of a wave breaking on the shore travels outwards.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243551]Indeed. But I was referring to the simple observation that the
water in front of a wave breaking on the shore travels outwards.[/QUOTE]

Understood.

But, empirically... not everyone maps that observation to all wave-fronts (even though they should)....

[QUOTE=davieddy;243440]My point is that the risk is completely predictable the instant an undersea quake is detected,[/quote]"completely"?

[quote]Buoys scattered around the ocean to "detect" a tsunami should not be necessary. Plenty of boats around, anyway.[/quote]... even though people on boats in the ocean may not notice anything and boats aren't designed to detect the particular signature of a tsunami anyway?

[quote]I guess Sri Lanka copped it so hard because most energy was transmitted perpendicular to the fault line (diffraction). I guess this would account for Bangla Desh getting off surprizingly (to me) lightly.[/QUOTE]So, people in some directions are more in danger than people in others?

[QUOTE=davieddy;243449]Like "strongest earthquake ever" shouldn't ring an alarm bell or two.[/QUOTE]What is your [i]real[/i] gripe? They sent you the bill for 500 buoys?

[QUOTE=davieddy;243551]But I was referring to the simple observation that the water in front of a wave breaking on the shore travels outwards.[/QUOTE]So, you don't want people to have any more advance warning than that?

I guess you consider "red sky in morning, sailors take warning" is all folks need to know for blizzards, flash floods, tornadoes and hurricanes, right?

One man's warning is another man's dare.

But don't take that as a dare.

I decline (as usual) to rise to the bait.

Your tedious technique is to deliberately
interpret sentences, out of context, in a way as
far from the spirit intended as possible.

David

If you meant me, there's nothing tedious about desiring
clarity and exactness.

[QUOTE=davar55;243634]If you meant me, there's nothing tedious about desiring
clarity and exactness.[/QUOTE]

No. I meant Richard.

We three seem to be having trouble distinguishing each other ATM:smile:

(e.g. Newer Milestone thread)

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243637]We three seem to be having trouble distinguishing each other ATM:smile:
[/QUOTE]As I write this, my new eye glass prescription is right in front of me. -.25. +2.00, 160 and so on.:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;243632]I decline (as usual) to rise to the bait.

Your tedious technique is to deliberately
interpret sentences, out of context, in a way as
far from the spirit intended as possible.

David[/QUOTE]
I know this is directed at Cheesehead but I'm going to stick my oar in here.
David, you started a thread on the sixth anniversary of one of the deadliest catastrophes in living memory suggesting that the effort to put in place a warning system ("get away from the coast now!") which surely would have saved countless lives in 2004, is health and safety gone mad.
Pretty astonishing thing to say!:surprised
I know this is the lounge, not the soap box, and we are supposed to take it easy here. But I still think you need to make it clear what you are talking about. You might have some point, but whatever it is is not clear to me at the moment. Maybe you could explain why the reaction was out of context: that might provide some clarification.
:smile:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;243654]I know this is directed at Cheesehead but I'm going to stick my oar in here.
David, you started a thread on the sixth anniversary of one of the deadliest catastrophes in living memory suggesting that the effort to put in place a warning system ("get away from the coast now!") which surely would have saved countless lives in 2004, is health and safety gone mad.
Pretty astonishing thing to say!:surprised
I know this is the lounge, not the soap box, and we are supposed to take it easy here. But I still think you need to make it clear what you are talking about. You might have some point, but whatever it is is not clear to me at the moment. Maybe you could explain why the reaction was out of context: that might provide some clarification.
:smile:[/QUOTE]
Well Retina got my intended meaning immediately in post #2.

Why were folk not warned to "get away from the coast now!" as
soon as the monster quake was detected? No detecting buoys in the
Indian Ocean has always struck me as a pathetic excuse for failing
to predict the likelihood and progress of the tsunami.

Obviously, it is a good idea to do whatever is feasible to monitor
the strength and speed of any tsunami directly, but the risk (or
more like near certainty) of a whopping tsunami should have been
blatantly obvious, and warning broadcast immediately and as widely
as possible.

Perhaps all effort WAS made but lack of communications with the
relevant coastal areas were inadequate. If this was the case,
improvement is obviously desirable, even if (as I said) that maybe
easier said than done.

I may lack piety but I'm not callous.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243677][...]
Perhaps all effort WAS made but lack of communications with the
relevant coastal areas were inadequate. If this was the case,
improvement is obviously desirable, even if (as I said) that maybe
easier said than done.

I may lack piety but I'm not callous.

David[/QUOTE]
So you [B]do[/B] understand the need, or at least the possible need, for the early warning system. I am in complete agreement with what you write in this quoted section. And indeed, easier said than done: that's why an expensive system needed to be put in place.

I had a pretty good idea already that you aren't callous, which is why I decided to question a bit further. I'm glad I did.:smile: