Denne video handler om Min film

description

Recorded with https://screencast-o-matic.com

Geografilæren forklarer om olie og gas dannelse. Olie- og gasvinduet. Segl-, kilde- og resservoir bjergart.

Animationer fra http://webgeology.alfaweb.no/

Lær at bygge et Story Map Tour med dit eget indhold af tekst og billeder placeret på verdenskortet. Temaet for dette Story Map er jordskælv og pladegrænser.

Istiderne har formet øst-- og vestdanmark. Hvorfor er der sand i vestjylland og ler i øst?

Hvad er der i jordens indre? hvor kommer lava fra? Hvordan dannes jordens magnetfelt

OBS. Ved 7:52 er der en fejl det er IKKE en kegle vulkan med skjold vulkan der forklares om. Beklager fejlen

Geografi - jordskælv....

Geografi - jordskælv....

Til en opgave i geografi

If you like, please, subscribe :)

3d Max Model / Animation - Damon Williams
"Tsunami" : Harbor Wave - So named because enclosed harbors are often where low or distant tsunamis become most conspicuous and do the most damage.
Short tsunami simulation using Ripple modifier in 3D Studio Max.
Shown - Wave speed decreases and amplitude increases with greater proximity to the shoreline while they can be indiscernible out at sea.

www.mrcannons.tumblr.com
Twitter: @Mr_Cannons
Pinterest: Mr C

Note: this video has no sound, you aren't going deaf!

I constructed this as part of a tsunami investigation for Year 4. This was the test run, and I flmed it and slowed it down so the children would be able to see exactly what happened. It is excellent at demonstrating drawback, so links well to 'signs of a tsunami'. I used gravel, sand and soil for the 'land' with a flowerpot to represent the mountains of Chile, articicial foliage, Monopoly houses, and bricks (from childrens building block set) to represent city buildings and skyscrapers. The key, though, is a flat piece of wood with a string in one end that you can pull to lift the wood. This of course replicates a tectonic plate.

It works really well in showing the damage is worse near the coast, and how stronger buildings fare better, as well as causes and impacts of tsunamis. To get the full effects, let the children throw a bucket of water over it at the end - they'll love it!

tsunami model | school science exhibition project

#tsunamimodel #scienceexhibition #howtofunda

This animation shows how PTWC's real-time tsunami forecast model, RIFT, predicts the behavior of the tsunami following the 9.0 magnitude earthquake offshore of the Tōhoku-Oki region, Japan, on 11 March 2011. This version uses the USGS finite fault model (link below) as the source mechanism for the tsunami model, therefore the animation begins in "slow motion" to show the details of how the tsunami starts. The animation covers a 48-hour period finishing with an "energy map" showing the forecasted maximum heights of open-ocean tsunami waves over that time period, followed with the forecasted tsunami runup on the coasts. If you look carefully you will see not only the waves leaving Japan, but also the reflected waves leaving South America after about 23 hours.

For a "rotating globe" version, please see: http://youtu.be/feBtPsJH25c

For the earthquake and its aftershocks, please see: http://youtu.be/3r-JVx8yMpw

Finite fault model: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear....thquakes/eqinthenews

tsunami with wall

From the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (NWS): At 14:46 on the afternoon of 11 March 2011 (05:46 UTC), a 9.0 moment magnitude earthquake struck near the coastline of Honshu, Japan. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) quickly determined that the very large magnitude of this earthquake, its offshore location, its relatively shallow depth within the earth, and a history of megathrust earthquakes in the region meant that it likely moved the seafloor and thus posed a significant tsunami risk. As per international agreements Japanese authorities issued tsunami warnings for their own coastlines while PTWC began issuing warnings to other countries and territories in the western Pacific Ocean. The earthquake did in fact cause a tsunami, and over the following hours as PTWC learned more about the earthquake (confirming it was a megathrust and upgrading its magnitude) and its tsunami through forecast models and direct observation with DART sensors and coastal sea-level gauges PTWC would eventually issue tsunami warnings to the State of Hawaii and all remaining countries and territories participating the Pacific Tsunami Warning System, keeping warnings in some areas in effect for more than a day. PTWC’s sister office, the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (now known as the National Tsunami Warning Center), also issued tsunami warnings for Alaska and the Pacific coasts of the United States and Canada. The tsunami caused the greatest devastation and over 17,000 deaths in Japan, where waves reached over 40 m or 130 ft. high. Outside of Japan the tsunami also killed one person in Papua, Indonesia and rose to greater than 5 m or 16 ft. in the Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), greater than 2m or 6.5 ft. in Indonesia, Russia's Kuril Islands, and in Chile, and rose to greater than 1 m or 3 ft. in Costa Rica, the Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia), Mexico, Papua New Guinea, and Peru. In the United States the tsunami rose to more than 5 m or 16 ft. in Hawaii, more than 2 m or 6.5 ft in California and Oregon, and more than 1 m or 3 ft. in the U.S. island territories of Midway and Saipan (Northern Mariana Islands). The tsunami also killed one person in Crescent City, California.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) can create an animation of a historical tsunami like this one using the same tool that it uses to determine tsunami hazards in real time for any tsunami today: the Real-Time Forecasting of Tsunamis (RIFT) forecast model. The RIFT model takes earthquake information as input and calculates how the waves move through the world’s oceans, predicting their speed, wavelength, and amplitude. This animation shows these values through the simulated motion of the waves and as they travel through the world’s oceans one can also see the distance between successive wave crests (wavelength) as well as their height (half-amplitude) indicated by their color. More importantly, the model also shows what happens when these tsunami waves strike land, the very information that PTWC needs to issue tsunami hazard guidance for impacted coastlines. From the beginning the animation shows all coastlines covered by colored points. These are initially a blue color like the undisturbed ocean to indicate normal sea level, but as the tsunami waves reach them they will change color to represent the height of the waves coming ashore, and often these values are higher than they were in the deeper waters offshore. The color scheme is based on PTWC’s warning criteria, with blue-to-green representing no hazard (less than 30 cm or ~1 ft.), yellow-to-orange indicating low hazard with a stay-off-the-beach recommendation (30 to 100 cm or ~1 to 3 ft.), light red-to-bright red indicating significant hazard requiring evacuation (1 to 3 m or ~3 to 10 ft.), and dark red indicating a severe hazard possibly requiring a second-tier evacuation (greater than 3 m or ~10 ft.).

Toward the end of this simulated 36 hours of activity the wave animation will transition to the “energy map” of a mathematical surface representing the maximum rise in sea-level on the open ocean caused by the tsunami, a pattern that indicates that the kinetic energy of the tsunami was not distributed evenly across the oceans but instead forms a highly directional “beam” such that the tsunami was far more severe in the middle of the “beam” of energy than on its sides. This pattern also generally correlates to the coastal impacts; note how those coastlines directly in the “beam” are hit by larger waves than those to either side of it.

-----

Earthquake source used: USGS NEIC Finite Fault Model

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear....thquakes/eqinthenews

For a NOAA Science on a Sphere version of this animation, please see:

http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=599

Study process arrival of tsunami model in this video with an open platform.

Proceso del estudio de la llegada del tsunami al modelo, en este video con la plataforma abierta .

A shallow water wave tank is used to demonstrate the effect of a tsunami. For information about how to build this model please see:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Tsunami-Model/

Speaker: Kazuo Kashiyama
Title: Modeling and Simulation of Tsunami Using Virtual Reality Technology
Chuo University, Japan

At 3:34 on the morning of February 27, 2010 (06:34 UTC), an 8.8 moment magnitude earthquake struck near the coastline of central Chile. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) quickly determined that the large magnitude of this earthquake, its location near the coastline, its relatively shallow depth within the earth, and a history of megathrust earthquakes in the region meant that it could have moved the seafloor and thus posed a significant tsunami risk and PTWC issued their first tsunami warning several minutes later for Chile and Peru. The earthquake did in fact cause a tsunami, and over the following hours as PTWC learned more about the earthquake (confirming it was a megathrust and upgrading its magnitude) and its tsunami through forecast models and direct observation with DART sensors and coastal sea-level gauges PTWC would eventually issue tsunami warnings to the State of Hawaii and all 43 countries and territories participating the Pacific Tsunami Warning System, keeping warnings in some areas in effect for more than a day. PTWC’s sister office, the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (now known as the National Tsunami Warning Center), also issued tsunami advisories for Alaska and the Pacific coasts of the United States and Canada. The tsunami caused the greatest devastation and 124 deaths in Chile, where waves reached as high as 29 m or 95 ft. on the mainland, over 18 m or 60 ft. in its Juan Fernandez Islands, and over 4 m or 14 ft. at Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Outside of Chile tsunami wave heights exceeded 1 m or 3 ft. in the Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia), New Zealand, the Kuril Islands (Russia), and in the United States in California and Hawaii, and caused minor damage in San Diego, California and in Japan.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) can create an animation of a historical tsunami like this one using the same tool that it uses to determine tsunami hazards in real time for any tsunami today: the Real-Time Forecasting of Tsunamis (RIFT) forecast model. The RIFT model takes earthquake information as input and calculates how the waves move through the world’s oceans, predicting their speed, wavelength, and amplitude. This animation shows these values through the simulated motion of the waves and as they travel through the world’s oceans one can also see the distance between successive wave crests (wavelength) as well as their height (half-amplitude) indicated by their color. More importantly, the model also shows what happens when these tsunami waves strike land, the very information that PTWC needs to issue tsunami hazard guidance for impacted coastlines. From the beginning the animation shows all coastlines covered by colored points. These are initially a blue color like the undisturbed ocean to indicate normal sea level, but as the tsunami waves reach them they will change color to represent the height of the waves coming ashore, and often these values are higher than they were in the deeper waters offshore. The color scheme is based on PTWC’s warning criteria, with blue-to-green representing no hazard (less than 30 cm or ~1 ft.), yellow-to-orange indicating low hazard with a stay-off-the-beach recommendation (30 to 100 cm or ~1 to 3 ft.), light red-to-bright red indicating significant hazard requiring evacuation (1 to 3 m or ~3 to 10 ft.), and dark red indicating a severe hazard possibly requiring a second-tier evacuation (greater than 3 m or ~10 ft.).

Toward the end of this simulated 30 hours of activity the wave animation will transition to the “energy map” of a mathematical surface representing the maximum rise in sea-level on the open ocean caused by the tsunami, a pattern that indicates that the kinetic energy of the tsunami was not distributed evenly across the oceans but instead forms a highly directional “beam” such that the tsunami was far more severe in the middle of the “beam” of energy than on its sides. This pattern also generally correlates to the coastal impacts; note how those coastlines directly in the “beam” are hit by larger waves than those to either side of it.

-----

Earthquake source used: USGS NEIC W-Phase CMT

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear....thquakes/eqinthenews

For a NOAA Science on a Sphere version of this animation, please see:

http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=597

This visualization demonstrates the use of computer modeling, data and information resources, and visualization techniques to simulate the evolution of a tsunami wave on modern-day Suva, Fiji, based on the 1953 tsunamigenic event. (Note: This video does not have audio.)

Sebab tsunami yang paling umum adalah gempa bumi bawah laut, terutama yang terjadi di zona penunjaman dengan kekuatan 7,0 skala magnitudo momen atau lebih. Penyebab lainnya adalah longsor, letusan gunung, dan jatuhnya benda besar seperti meteor ke dalam air. Secara geografis, hampir seluruh tsunami terjadi di kawasan Lingkaran Api Pasifik dan kawasan Palung Sumatra di Samudra Hindia.

instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mapvel_geospatial/
email: mapvelgeospatial@gmail.com

Here it is. My story, from my point of view, about when I experienced the tsunami in Thailand 2004.

I want to show my deepest respect to the people who lost their lives or relatives in this tragedy.

Videos/photos from:
My own video camera
Sydsvenskan
http://frkenmatilda.blogg.se
https://www.youtube.com/channe....l/UCLyViqVf2Yuv5T-Qw
https://www.youtube.com/channe....l/UCn2iFpi2MA0iyrHgo
http://www.special-eu.org/

Follow my social media:
Instagram: http://instagram.com/lisaanckarman
Snapchat: @Anckarman
Contact: Lisa.anckarman@outlook.com

It is best project for science Fair

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake occurred off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia.

The quake triggered a series of devastating tsunamis along the coast of most of the landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean, inundating coastal communities with waves up to 30 meters.

This simulation shows the tsunami hitting Patong Beach, one of the worst affected areas of Phuket, Thailand.

The underlying model used to generate the scenario is the ANUGA hydrodynamic model which is a free and open source software tool, suitable for predicting the consequences of hydrological disasters such as riverine flooding, storm surges and tsunamis.

More information about the software is available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANUGA_Hydro

Scientific visualisation by NCI VizLab's Drew Whitehouse.

At 5:36 pm on Friday, March 27, 1964 (28 March, 03:36Z UTC) the largest earthquake ever measured in North America, and the second-largest recorded anywhere, struck 40 miles west of Valdez, Alaska in Prince William Sound with a moment magnitude we now know to be 9.2. Almost an hour and a half later the Honolulu Magnetic and Seismic Observatory (later renamed the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, or PTWC) was able to issue its first “tidal wave advisory” that noted that a tsunami was possible and that it could arrive in the Hawaiian Islands five hours later. Upon learning of a tsunami observation in Kodiak Island, Alaska, an hour and a half later the Honolulu Observatory issued a formal “tidal wave/seismic sea-wave warning” cautioning that damage was possible in Hawaii and throughout the Pacific Ocean but that it was not possible to predict the intensity of the tsunami. The earthquake did in fact generate a tsunami that killed 124 people (106 in Alaska, 13 in California, and 5 in Oregon) and caused about $2.3 billion (2016 dollars) in property loss all along the Pacific coast of North America from Alaska to southern California and in Hawaii. The greatest wave heights were in Alaska at over 67 m or 220 ft. and waves almost 10 m or 32 ft high struck British Columbia, Canada. In the “lower 48” waves as high as 4.5 m or 15 ft. struck Washington, as high as 3.7 m or 12 ft. struck Oregon, and as high as 4.8 m or over 15 ft. struck California. Waves of similar size struck Hawaii at nearly 5 m or over 16 ft. high. Waves over 1 m or 3 ft. high also struck Mexico, Chile, and even New Zealand.

As part of its response to this event the United States government created a second tsunami warning facility in 1967 at the Palmer Observatory, Alaska--now called the National Tsunami Warning Center (NTWC, http://ntwc.arh.noaa.gov/ )--to help mitigate future tsunami threats to Alaska, Canada, and the U.S. Mainland.

Today, more than 50 years since the Great Alaska Earthquake, PTWC and NTWC issue tsunami warnings in minutes, not hours, after a major earthquake occurs, and will also forecast how large any resulting tsunami will be as it is still crossing the ocean. PTWC can also create an animation of a historical tsunami with the same tool that it uses to determine tsunami hazards in real time for any tsunami today: the Real-Time Forecasting of Tsunamis (RIFT) forecast model. The RIFT model takes earthquake information as input and calculates how the waves move through the world’s oceans, predicting their speed, wavelength, and amplitude. This animation shows these values through the simulated motion of the waves and as they travel through the world’s oceans one can also see the distance between successive wave crests (wavelength) as well as their height (half-amplitude) indicated by their color. More importantly, the model also shows what happens when these tsunami waves strike land, the very information that PTWC needs to issue tsunami hazard guidance for impacted coastlines. From the beginning the animation shows all coastlines covered by colored points. These are initially a blue color like the undisturbed ocean to indicate normal sea level, but as the tsunami waves reach them they will change color to represent the height of the waves coming ashore, and often these values are higher than they were in the deeper waters offshore. The color scheme is based on PTWC’s warning criteria, with blue-to-green representing no hazard (less than 30 cm or ~1 ft.), yellow-to-orange indicating low hazard with a stay-off-the-beach recommendation (30 to 100 cm or ~1 to 3 ft.), light red-to-bright red indicating significant hazard requiring evacuation (1 to 3 m or ~3 to 10 ft.), and dark red indicating a severe hazard possibly requiring a second-tier evacuation (greater than 3 m or ~10 ft.).

Toward the end of this simulated 24 hours of activity the wave animation will transition to the “energy map” of a mathematical surface representing the maximum rise in sea-level on the open ocean caused by the tsunami, a pattern that indicates that the kinetic energy of the tsunami was not distributed evenly across the oceans but instead forms a highly directional “beam” such that the tsunami was far more severe in the middle of the “beam” of energy than on its sides. This pattern also generally correlates to the coastal impacts; note how those coastlines directly in the “beam” are hit by larger waves than those to either side of it.

----------

Earthquake source used:

Johnson, J. M., K. Satake, S. R. Holdahl, and J. Sauber, The 1964 Prince William Sound earthquake: Joint inversion of tsunami and geodetic data, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 523–532, 1996

NOAA Science on s Sphere Version available at:
http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=605

What is a natural disaster and how are people's lives affected by them?

In order to begin tackling this question sixth graders were tasked with not only researching different forms of natural disasters, but also tasked with creating miniature sets for natural disaster simulations.

Each group of students had to:
1)identify roles for their simulations
2)create supply lists
3)generate facts and questions
4)storyboard the events they plan to simulate
5)write out dialogue capturing responses to the simulated events, and finally
6) construct their sets

Students had the option of exploring tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Throughout the construction phase students have been tracking their progress through daily project updates and reflections.

RST.6-8.3. Follow precisely a multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks.

RST.6-8.7. Integrate quantitative or technical information expressed in words in a text with a version of that information expressed visually (e.g., in a flowchart, diagram, model, graph, or table).

WHST.6-8.7. Conduct short research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question), drawing on several sources and generating additional related, focused questions that allow for multiple avenues of exploration.

WHST.6-8.9. Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis reflection, and research.

We simulated the 2004 Indian Ocean and 2011 Japanese tsunamis in an engineering physical model at our laboratories in Wallingford, UK. Find out more about our tsunami simulators at http://www.hrwallingford.com/facilities

On May 22, 1960, at 3:11 pm (19:11 UTC) the largest earthquake ever recorded by instruments struck southern Chile with a magnitude we now know to be at least 9.5. This earthquake generated a tsunami that traveled through every ocean on earth, though large, dangerous waves only impacted the coastlines around the Pacific Ocean. Chile suffered the greatest impact, with tsunami waves reaching as high as 25 m or 82 ft., killing an estimated 2000 people there. Outside of Chile the tsunami was worst on the opposite side of the planet in Japan, where waves reached as high as 6.3 m or over 20 ft and killed 139 people. In between and halfway across the Pacific Ocean Hawaii suffered the second-worst tsunami in its recorded history--only the Aleutian Islands tsunami of 1946 was worse. It killed 61 people in the town of Hilo with waves reaching as high as 10.7 m or about 35 ft. and all Hawaiian Islands experienced waves well over 1 m or 3 ft. The Philippines also lost 21 people to waves recorded as high as 1.5 m or nearly 5 ft, and two more people died in California from waves reaching 2.2 m or over 7 ft. high. Elsewhere around the Pacific Ocean tsunami waves reached as high as 12.2 m or 40 ft at Pitcairn Island (U.K), 7.0 m or 23 ft. in Russia (Kamchatka), 5.0 m or over 16 ft. in New Zealand, 4.9 m or 16 ft. in (Western) Samoa, 2.4 m or about 8 ft. in French Polynesia, 2.1 m or 7 ft. in Canada, 1.8 m or about 6 ft. in Papua New Guinea, and 1.2 m or about 4 ft. in Mexico. In the United States and it territories 2.4 m or about 8 ft. in American Samoa, 2.3 m or 7.5 ft. in Alaska, and 1.8 m or about 6 ft. in Oregon.

A global tsunami warning system did not exist in 1960 and the Honolulu Magnetic and Seismic Observatory, which would later become the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC), did issue tsunami warnings for this earthquake to the State of Hawaii many hours in advance of its arrival (it would take almost 15 hours for the first wave to reach Hawaii). As a result of this tsunami the United Nations would set up the Pacific Tsunami Warning System (PTWS) in 1965 with the Honolulu Observatory as its headquarters.

Today, more than 50 years since the Great Chile Earthquake and the establishment of the PTWS, the PTWC will issue tsunami warnings in minutes, not hours, after a major earthquake occurs, and will forecast how large any resulting tsunami will be as it is still crossing the ocean. The PTWC can also create an animation of a historical tsunami with the same tool that it uses to determine tsunami hazards in real time for any tsunami today: the Real-Time Forecasting of Tsunamis (RIFT) forecast model. The RIFT model takes earthquake information as input and calculates how the waves move through the world’s oceans, predicting their speed, wavelength, and amplitude. This animation shows these values through the simulated motion of the waves and as they travel through the world’s oceans one can also see the distance between successive wave crests (wavelength) as well as their height (half-amplitude) indicated by their color. More importantly, the model also shows what happens when these tsunami waves strike land, the very information that the PTWC needs to issue tsunami hazard guidance for impacted coastlines. From the beginning the animation shows all coastlines covered by colored points. These are initially a blue color like the undisturbed ocean to indicate normal sea level, but as the tsunami waves reach them they will change color to represent the height of the waves coming ashore, and often these values are higher than they were in the deeper waters offshore. The color scheme is based on the PTWC’s warning criteria, with blue-to-green representing no hazard (less than 30 cm or ~1 ft.), yellow-to-orange indicating low hazard with a stay-off-the-beach recommendation (30 to 100 cm or ~1 to 3 ft.), light red-to-bright red indicating significant hazard requiring evacuation (1 to 3 m or ~3 to 10 ft.), and dark red indicating a severe hazard possibly requiring a second-tier evacuation (greater than 3 m or ~10 ft.).

Toward the end of this simulated 36 hours of activity the wave animation will transition to the “energy map” of a mathematical surface representing the maximum rise in sea-level on the open ocean caused by the tsunami, a pattern that indicates that the kinetic energy of the tsunami was not distributed evenly across the oceans but instead forms a highly directional “beam” such that the tsunami was far more severe in the middle of the “beam” of energy than on its sides. This pattern also generally correlates to the coastal impacts; note how those coastlines directly in the “beam” are hit by larger waves than those to either side of it.

----------

Earthquake source used:

Fujii, Y. and K. Satake, Slip Distribution and Seismic Moment of the 2010 and 1960 Chilean Earthquakes Inferred from Tsunami Waveforms and Coastal Geodetic Data, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 170, 1493-1509, 2012

Discover the power and motion of waves by unleashing your own tsunami. http://www.msichicago.org/sciencestorms
Museum of Science and Industry

At 14:46 on the afternoon of 11 March 2011 (05:46 UTC), a 9.0 moment magnitude earthquake struck near the coastline of Honshu, Japan. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) quickly determined that the very large magnitude of this earthquake, its offshore location, its relatively shallow depth within the earth, and a history of megathrust earthquakes in the region meant that it likely moved the seafloor and thus posed a significant tsunami risk. As per international agreements Japanese authorities issued tsunami warnings for their own coastlines while PTWC began issuing warnings to other countries and territories in the western Pacific Ocean. The earthquake did in fact cause a tsunami, and over the following hours as PTWC learned more about the earthquake (confirming it was a megathrust and upgrading its magnitude) and its tsunami through forecast models and direct observation with DART sensors and coastal sea-level gauges PTWC would eventually issue tsunami warnings to the State of Hawaii and all remaining countries and territories participating the Pacific Tsunami Warning System, keeping warnings in some areas in effect for more than a day. PTWC’s sister office, the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (now known as the National Tsunami Warning Center), also issued tsunami warnings for Alaska and the Pacific coasts of the United States and Canada. The tsunami caused the greatest devastation and over 17,000 deaths in Japan, where waves reached over 40 m or 130 ft. high. Outside of Japan the tsunami also killed one person in Papua, Indonesia and rose to greater than 5 m or 16 ft. in the Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), greater than 2m or 6.5 ft. in Indonesia, Russia's Kuril Islands, and in Chile, and rose to greater than 1 m or 3 ft. in Costa Rica, the Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia), Mexico, Papua New Guinea, and Peru. In the United States the tsunami rose to more than 5 m or 16 ft. in Hawaii, more than 2 m or 6.5 ft in California and Oregon, and more than 1 m or 3 ft. in the U.S. island territories of Midway and Saipan (Northern Mariana Islands). The tsunami also killed one person in Crescent City, California.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) can create an animation of a historical tsunami like this one using the same tool that it uses to determine tsunami hazards in real time for any tsunami today: the Real-Time Forecasting of Tsunamis (RIFT) forecast model. The RIFT model takes earthquake information as input and calculates how the waves move through the world’s oceans, predicting their speed, wavelength, and amplitude. This animation shows these values through the simulated motion of the waves and as they travel through the world’s oceans one can also see the distance between successive wave crests (wavelength) as well as their height (half-amplitude) indicated by their color. More importantly, the model also shows what happens when these tsunami waves strike land, the very information that PTWC needs to issue tsunami hazard guidance for impacted coastlines. From the beginning the animation shows all coastlines covered by colored points. These are initially a blue color like the undisturbed ocean to indicate normal sea level, but as the tsunami waves reach them they will change color to represent the height of the waves coming ashore, and often these values are higher than they were in the deeper waters offshore. The color scheme is based on PTWC’s warning criteria, with blue-to-green representing no hazard (less than 30 cm or ~1 ft.), yellow-to-orange indicating low hazard with a stay-off-the-beach recommendation (30 to 100 cm or ~1 to 3 ft.), light red-to-bright red indicating significant hazard requiring evacuation (1 to 3 m or ~3 to 10 ft.), and dark red indicating a severe hazard possibly requiring a second-tier evacuation (greater than 3 m or ~10 ft.).

Toward the end of this simulated 36 hours of activity the wave animation will transition to the “energy map” of a mathematical surface representing the maximum rise in sea-level on the open ocean caused by the tsunami, a pattern that indicates that the kinetic energy of the tsunami was not distributed evenly across the oceans but instead forms a highly directional “beam” such that the tsunami was far more severe in the middle of the “beam” of energy than on its sides. This pattern also generally correlates to the coastal impacts; note how those coastlines directly in the “beam” are hit by larger waves than those to either side of it.

-----

Earthquake source used: USGS NEIC Finite Fault Model

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear....thquakes/eqinthenews

For a NOAA Science on a Sphere version of this animation, please see:

http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=599

The magnitude 9.1 Great Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of December 26, 2004, spawned the deadliest tsunami in history, killing more than 230,000 people in 14 countries around the Indian Ocean. More than half of those killed had lived in Acheh Province, Sumatra, where the tsunami rose as high as 30 m (100 ft.) and traveled more than 4 km (2.5 mi.) inland in this low-lying region.

This earthquake began at its epicenter near northern Sumatra and moved the earth's crust an average of 15 m (50 ft.) as it ruptured northward for at least 1200 km (750 mi.), almost to the coast of Myanmar (Burma), over an 8-minute period. This distance is at least 200 km (125 mi.) longer than the length of fault that moved during the largest earthquake ever recorded, the magnitude 9.5 Great Chile Earthquake of 1960.

This animation shows why this south-to-north rupture is important for understanding the behavior of this tsunami, and why such "progressive" rupture needs to be considered for future tsunami forecasting. If the earthquake had moved the fault along its entire length all-at-once it would have sent the largest tsunami waves perpendicular to the fault and so they would have passed south of Sri Lanka. The earthquake motion, however, started in the south and moved northward along the fault so the tsunami began radiating from near Sumatra before it could be generated near Myanmar, thus causing the largest tsunami waves to move in a different direction such that they strike Sri Lanka and Somalia directly, consistent with the tsunami waves actually observed in those countries.

PTWC created this animation using the progressive rupture described by Chlieh et al. (2007) as input for their experimental forecast model, RIFT (Wang et al., 2012). For the first 30 minutes of simulated time the animation is centered over the northern Indian Ocean and moves at 30x normal speed to show the details of the tsunami as generated by this progressive rupture. The animation then speeds up to 1800x normal speed (1 sec. = 30 minutes simulated time) to carry the simulation forward a full 24 hours while it also zooms out and rotates the virtual globe to show the entire Indian Ocean. The waves then fade to an "energy map" showing the maximum calculated tsunami heights on the open ocean, then fade again to a map of the maximum calculated tsunami heights on the impacted coastlines.


References:

Chlieh, M., Avouac, J., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock., Y., & Galetzka, J. (2007) "Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great Mw 9.15 Sumatra--Andaman Earthquake of 2004." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97 (1A), S152--S173, DOI: 10.1785/0120050631

Wang, D., N.C. Becker, D. Walsh, G.J. Fryer, S.A. Weinstein, C.S. McCreery, V. Sardiña, V. Hsu, B.F. Hirshorn, G.P. Hayes, Z. Duputel, L. Rivera, H. Kanamori, K.K. Koyanagi, and B. Shiro (2012) "Real-time Forecasting of the April 11, 2012 Sumatra Tsunami" Geophysical Research Letters, 39, 6 pp., DOI: 10.1029/2012GL053081

Just before midnight on January 27, 1700 a tsunami struck the coasts of Japan without warning since no one in Japan felt the earthquake that must have caused it. Nearly 300 years later scientists and historians in Japan and the United States solved the mystery of what caused this “orphan tsunami” through careful analysis of historical records in Japan as well as oral histories of Native Americans, sediment deposits, and ghost forests of drowned trees in the Pacific Northwest of North America, a region also known as Cascadia. They learned that this geologically active region, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, not only hosts erupting volcanoes but also produces megathrust earthquakes capable of generating devastating, ocean-crossing tsunamis. By comparing the tree rings of dead trees with those still living they could tell when the last of these great earthquakes struck the region. The trees all died in the winter of 1699-1700 when the coasts of northern California, Oregon, and Washington suddenly dropped 1-2 m (3-6 ft.), flooding them with seawater. That much motion over such a large area requires a very large earthquake to explain it—perhaps as large as 9.2 magnitude, comparable to the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. Such an earthquake would have ruptured the earth along the entire length of the 1000 km (600 mi) -long fault of the Cascadia Subduction Zone and severe shaking could have lasted for 5 minutes or longer. Its tsunami would cross the Pacific Ocean and reach Japan in about 9 hours, so the earthquake must have occurred around 9 o’clock at night in Cascadia on January 26, 1700 (05:00 January 27 UTC).

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) can create an animation of a historical tsunami like this one using the same tool that it uses to determine tsunami hazards in real time for any tsunami today: the Real-Time Forecasting of Tsunamis (RIFT) forecast model. The RIFT model takes earthquake information as input and calculates how the waves move through the world’s oceans, predicting their speed, wavelength, and amplitude. This animation shows these values through the simulated motion of the waves and as they travel through the world’s oceans one can also see the distance between successive wave crests (wavelength) as well as their height (half-amplitude) indicated by their color. More importantly, the model also shows what happens when these tsunami waves strike land, the very information that PTWC needs to issue tsunami hazard guidance for impacted coastlines. From the beginning the animation shows all coastlines covered by colored points. These are initially a blue color like the undisturbed ocean to indicate normal sea level, but as the tsunami waves reach them they will change color to represent the height of the waves coming ashore, and often these values are higher than they were in the deeper waters offshore. The color scheme is based on PTWC’s warning criteria, with blue-to-green representing no hazard (less than 30 cm or ~1 ft.), yellow-to-orange indicating low hazard with a stay-off-the-beach recommendation (30 to 100 cm or ~1 to 3 ft.), light red-to-bright red indicating significant hazard requiring evacuation (1 to 3 m or ~3 to 10 ft.), and dark red indicating a severe hazard possibly requiring a second-tier evacuation (greater than 3 m or ~10 ft.).

Toward the end of this simulated 24 hours of activity the wave animation will transition to the “energy map” of a mathematical surface representing the maximum rise in sea-level on the open ocean caused by the tsunami, a pattern that indicates that the kinetic energy of the tsunami was not distributed evenly across the oceans but instead forms a highly directional “beam” such that the tsunami was far more severe in the middle of the “beam” of energy than on its sides. This pattern also generally correlates to the coastal impacts; note how those coastlines directly in the “beam” are hit by larger waves than those to either side of it.

The full report about the Orphan Tsunami of 1700 can be found here:

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1707

For a NOAA Science on a Sphere version of this animation, please see:

http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=590

7th graders from Prairie Mountain School conduct tsunami modeling tests at the Hinsdale Wave Research Lab at Oregon State University.

Maqueta de tsunami presentada por el IES Bellavista en la Feria de la Ciencia de Sevilla de 2016.

CRC researchers from Oregon State University, along with OSU students and University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez students taking part in the SUMREX exchange program, test the strength of a model structure in the OH Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory in the summer of 2018. Video by Oregon State University.

Impulse.. like the impact of a comet, or ocean tectonics .. they really are two different waves .. especially when they hit shallow water. A more realistic wave is to raise the ocean floor, the moving wall will work.. but it should be done slowly. Most tsunamis do not break like a giant surfing wave.. that's Hollywood ... :-)

Tsunami wave simulation for Washington State from a hypothetical magnitude 9.0 earthquake (L1) scenario on the Cascadia subduction zone. Developed by Washington Geological Survey hazard geologists.

On the morning of November 1, 1755, a great earthquake shook Portugal's capital city of Lisbon as worshipers filled churches and cathedrals for the All Saints' Day Mass. In seconds it left the city in ruins and in minutes those ruins were on fire. The earthquake probably killed about 30,000 people, though some estimates double that figure. Many of the survivors fled to the wharves and keys of Lisbon's port, but they would find no safety there. The first tsunami wave surged up the Tagus estuary about an hour after the earthquake, reached a maximum runup of 12 meters (40 feet), and killed another 1000 people. At least two more tsunami waves surged into the city, completing the earthquake's destruction.

At Portugal's coastal city of Lagos the tsunami was even larger, perhaps 30 m (100 ft). It went on to damage the ports of Cadiz in Spain, then Safi and Agadir in Morocco. The tsunami also spread north: it caused minor damage at Brest in Brittany, some flooding in England in the Scilly Islands and in Cornwall, and extensively flooded of the low-lying areas of the city of Cork, Ireland. As it spread out across the Atlantic, the tsunami first reached Madeira, where observers recorded a runup of 4 m (13 ft), then the Canary Islands, the Azores, and eventually the West Indies, where observers recorded runups of about a 1 m (3 ft) in Barbados, Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Antigua (and questionable reports of large runup in the Virgin Islands). Though the tsunami must have hit Colonial America, no one recorded it there, though it was observed in Newfoundland.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) can create an animation of a historical tsunami like this one using the same tool that it uses to determine tsunami hazards in real time for any tsunami today: the Real-Time Forecasting of Tsunamis (RIFT) forecast model. The RIFT model takes earthquake information as input and calculates how the waves move through the world’s oceans, predicting their speed, wavelength, and amplitude. This animation shows these values through the simulated motion of the waves and as they travel through the world’s oceans one can also see the distance between successive wave crests (wavelength) as well as their height (half-amplitude) indicated by their color. More importantly, the model also shows what happens when these tsunami waves strike land, the very information that PTWC needs to issue tsunami hazard guidance for impacted coastlines. From the beginning the animation shows all coastlines covered by colored points. These are initially a blue color like the undisturbed ocean to indicate normal sea level, but as the tsunami waves reach them they will change color to represent the height of the waves coming ashore, and often these values are higher than they were in the deeper waters offshore. The color scheme is based on PTWC’s warning criteria, with blue-to-green representing no hazard (less than 30 cm or ~1 ft.), yellow-to-orange indicating low hazard with a stay-off-the-beach recommendation (30 to 100 cm or ~1 to 3 ft.), light red-to-bright red indicating significant hazard requiring evacuation (1 to 3 m or ~3 to 10 ft.), and dark red indicating a severe hazard possibly requiring a second-tier evacuation (greater than 3 m or ~10 ft.).

Our model of this tsunami assumes its source was a magnitude 8.5 earthquake on the Horseshoe Fault off of Cape Finisterre. Baptista, et al. (2011) explain how this fault matches the tsunami observations better than the several other proposed sources for the Great Lisbon Earthquake

Toward the end of this simulated 24 hours of activity the wave animation will transition to the “energy map” of a mathematical surface representing the maximum rise in sea-level on the open ocean caused by the tsunami, a pattern that indicates that the kinetic energy of the tsunami was not distributed evenly across the oceans but instead forms a highly directional “beam” such that the tsunami was far more severe in the middle of the “beam” of energy than on its sides. This pattern also generally correlates to the coastal impacts; note how those coastlines directly in the “beam” are hit by larger waves than those to either side of it.

Earthquake source used:

Baptista, M.A., Miranda, J.M., Omira, R., & Antunes, C. (2011). "Potential inundation of Lisbon downtown by a 1755-like tsunami." Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 11(12), 3319--3326.

NOAA Science-on-a-Sphere Version:
http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=639

IDK I was bored

This inundation model was developed as part of the Catastrophic Disasters Working Group activity in 2005 by the Attorney Generals Department and Geoscience Australia for the then Australian Emergency Management Committee.

The event is entirely hypothetical and was put in place for discussion of response to catastrophic scenarios only.

The underlying model used to generate the scenario is the ANUGA hydrodynamic model which is a free and open source software tool, suitable for predicting the consequences of hydrological disasters such as riverine flooding, storm surges and tsunamis.

More information about the software is available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANUGA_Hydro

Scientific visualisation by NCI VizLab's Drew Whitehouse.

http://www.wretch.cc/blog/markacey
岩手県宮古市閉伊郡田老町

Particleworks is a CFD software based on an advanced numerical method known as the Moving Particle Semi-Implicit (MPS) method.
The mesh-free nature of MPS allows for robust simulation of free-surface flows at high resolutions, saving the time need to generate meshes for the fluid domain.
Particleworks provides direct file import from CAD software to reduce costs associated with mesh generation that is required for conventional CFD software.
Particleworks enables engineers to model and simulate large-scale problems related to free surface flows integrated with interactions such as fluid-rigid or fluid-powder, dealing with complex boundary geometries.

3D geographical data is created by ©MAPCUBE

The magnitude 9.1 Great Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of December 26, 2004, spawned the deadliest tsunami in history, killing more than 230,000 people in 14 countries around the Indian Ocean. More than half of those killed had lived in Acheh Province, Sumatra, where the tsunami rose as high as 30 m (100 ft.) and traveled more than 4 km (2.5 mi.) inland in this low-lying region.

This earthquake began at its epicenter near northern Sumatra and moved the earth's crust an average of 15 m (50 ft.) as it ruptured northward for at least 1200 km (750 mi.) almost to the coast of Myanmar (Burma) over an 8-minute period. This distance is at least 200 km (125 mi.) longer than the length of fault that moved during the largest earthquake ever recorded, the magnitude 9.5 Great Chile Earthquake of 1960.

This animation shows why this south-to-north rupture is important for understanding the behavior of this tsunami, and why such "progressive" rupture needs to be considered for future tsunami forecasting. If the earthquake had moved the fault along its entire length all-at-once it would have sent the largest tsunami waves perpendicular to the fault and so they would have passed south of Sri Lanka. The earthquake motion, however, started in the south and moved northward along the fault so the tsunami began radiating from near Sumatra before it could be generated near Myanmar, thus causing the largest tsunami waves to strike Sri Lanka and Somalia directly, consistent with the tsunami waves actually observed in those countries.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) can create an animation of a historical tsunami like this one using the same tool that it uses to determine tsunami hazards in real time for any tsunami today: the Real-Time Forecasting of Tsunamis (RIFT) forecast model. The RIFT model takes earthquake information as input and calculates how the waves move through the world’s oceans, predicting their speed, wavelength, and amplitude. This animation shows these values through the simulated motion of the waves and as they travel through the world’s oceans one can also see the distance between successive wave crests (wavelength) as well as their height (amplitude) indicated by their color. More importantly, the model also shows what happens when these tsunami waves strike land, the very information that PTWC needs to issue tsunami hazard guidance for impacted coastlines. From the beginning the animation shows all coastlines covered by colored points. These are initially a blue color like the undisturbed ocean to indicate normal sea level, but as the tsunami waves reach them they will change color to represent the height of the waves coming ashore, and often these values are higher than they were in the deeper waters offshore. The color scheme is based on PTWC’s warning criteria, with blue-to-green representing no hazard (less than 30 cm or ~1 ft.), yellow-to-orange indicating low hazard with a stay-off-the-beach recommendation (30 to 100 cm or ~1 to 3 ft.), light red-to-bright red indicating significant hazard requiring evacuation (1 to 3 m or ~3 to 10 ft.), and dark red indicating a severe hazard possibly requiring a second-tier evacuation (greater than 3 m or ~10 ft.).

Toward the end of this simulated 24 hours of activity the wave animation will transition to the “energy map” of a mathematical surface representing the maximum rise in sea-level on the open ocean caused by the tsunami, a pattern that indicates that the kinetic energy of the tsunami was not distributed evenly across the oceans but instead forms a highly directional “beam” such that the tsunami was far more severe in the middle of the “beam” of energy than on its sides. This pattern also generally correlates to the coastal impacts; note how those coastlines directly in the “beam” are hit by larger waves than those to either side of it.

Earthquake source used:

Chlieh, M., Avouac, J., Hjorleifsdottir, V., Song, T.A., Ji, C., Sieh, K., Sladen, A., Hebert, H., Prawirodirdjo, L., Bock., Y., & Galetzka, J. (2007) "Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great Mw 9.15 Sumatra--Andaman Earthquake of 2004." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97 (1A), S152--S173, DOI: 10.1785/0120050631

NOAA Science-on-a-Sphere version:

http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=642

It has been 10 years since the deadliest tsunami took the lives of 220,000, ripping through 14 countries. Now, the survivors are remembering those they lost on that dreadful day.
» Subscribe to TODAY: http://on.today.com/SubscribeToTODAY
» Watch the latest from TODAY: http://bit.ly/LatestTODAY

About: TODAY brings you the latest headlines and expert tips on money, health and parenting. We wake up every morning to give you and your family all you need to start your day. If it matters to you, it matters to us. We are in the people business. Subscribe to our channel for exclusive TODAY archival footage & our original web series.

Connect with TODAY Online!
Visit TODAY's Website: http://on.today.com/ReadTODAY
Find TODAY on Facebook: http://on.today.com/LikeTODAY
Follow TODAY on Twitter: http://on.today.com/FollowTODAY
Follow TODAY on Google+: http://on.today.com/PlusTODAY
Follow TODAY on Instagram: http://on.today.com/InstaTODAY
Follow TODAY on Pinterest: http://on.today.com/PinTODAY

Petra Němcová Remembers Tsunami That Killed Fiancé | TODAY