Hmmm.

I read someplace that if the earthquake is too deep in the ocean a tsunami won't form. This is probably why there wasn't a tsunami.

P-waves vs. T-waves? A slip fault with no noticable upward movement? Just got lucky?

Who knows.

Paul:

A scientist was wrong? Boy- whoda thunk it.

So?

From another article:

Last year's 9.0-magnitude Indian Ocean earthquake ruptured the ocean floor in a way that pushed a tsunami in nearly the worst possible direction - toward the most vulnerable areas with the most people. But the ground may have split yesterday in a different way that kept the waves and their deadly effects to a minimum, said Eric Geist, a U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist in Menlo Park, Calif.

One possibility is that the earthquake split along a fault plane that was more horizontal than vertical, according to an early estimate out of Harvard, said geologist Brian Atwater, also with the Geological Survey.

Saying a scientist was wrong is one thing; saying the body of knowledge on tsunamis is wrong would be another completely. Our current understanding still leaves plenty of room for there to have not been a tsunami, even though a tsunami was considered likely. Now, if they research the subject and find that everything looks like it should have produced a tsunami, but didn't - then Paul can gloat about those gosh darn dumb scientists.

I suspect everytime the weatherman calls for rain and it doesn't, Paul tells his friends "A-ha! We know nothing about meteorology! Just you wait until the the year 3005!"

Now, if they research the subject and find that everything looks like it should have produced a tsunami, but didn't - then Paul can gloat about those gosh darn dumb scientists.

hmmmmm

``We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising,'' he said. ...

``The one we initially thought was bigger turns out to have no effect,'' McCreery said. ``The one we initially thought was smaller had a huge effect...

andy:

dont take the bait man.

Lack of tsunami clearly shows that the theory of evolution is false.

areaman -

It's difficult not to... as I've said on my own site previously, and as others have said during the latest debacle, very little of this is about trying to change Paul's mind on anything. It's more about the audience and those who might see it and think "Yeah, dumb scientists!"

someguy -

The strength of the quake is not the only indicator of a tsunami being formed. As I said, they may have felt one was likely - that's a far cry from saying one is certain. See the meteorology comment.

``We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising,'' he said. ...

``The one we initially thought was bigger turns out to have no effect,'' McCreery said. ``The one we initially thought was smaller had a huge effect...

Ok. So what?

How about the "underwater landslide theory" (of which I know very little, other than those cool Discovery Channel shows with the wave pool)?

What if the December 'quake took out the susceptible landslide areas and this one had nothing to knock loose?

Now, if they research the subject and find that everything looks like it should have produced a tsunami, but didn't - then Paul can gloat about those gosh darn dumb scientists.

hmmmmm

``We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising,'' he said. ...

``The one we initially thought was bigger turns out to have no effect,'' McCreery said. ``The one we initially thought was smaller had a huge effect...

I read somewhere that the big difference (like ed said) was the depth of the epicenter. This earthquake was centered something like 18 miles below sea level, the Dec 26th one was like 5 miles? I don't recall the numbers exactly. But the article made the point that tsunamis are more likely to occur with a shallow epicenter.

andy:

I know what you're saying. Howver, anybody who reads this post and then makes the assumption that scientists are stupid because they arent always correct is a fool. Was Leonardo DaVinci always correct? Nope. Does that mean he was stupid? Definitely not.

One of the best attributes of scientists is that they can admit when they are wrong, and this article is a good case in point. They dont seemt to have a problem saying they were incorrect...and thats where science differs from religious belief.

However, there ARE scientists who dont like to admit when they are wrong, and who dont want to hear different ideas that might contradict their own...but those types go against the whole idea of scientific learning.

This little article is a good example of what scientists SHOULD be doing...they did their work, figured out what they thought would happen...but then they turned out to be wrong. Ok. So now they get back to work and figure out WHY they were wrong. Thats the normal process.

While no tsunami was detected, a "small wave" (aka not a tsunami) was which exemplifies an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon - actually, natural event. But andy expresses this point quite well.

Scientists are wrong much of the time. They are also right much of the time. I believe that ratio of right:wrong hovers around 42:42 which is equivalently 1:1, so they are right about as often as they are wrong. Yet those odds are still better than the ones proposed by non-scientists. Thank you, I'll still stick with the dumb scientists and let my knuckles drag a bit longer. I just hope I can avoid the tsunamis.

PS - My new obsession with "42" may soon approach your obsession with "debunking the scientist" stories... not that there's anything wrong with that.

One of the best attributes of scientists is that they can admit when they are wrong, and this article is a good case in point. They dont seemt to have a problem saying they were incorrect...and thats where science differs from religious belief.

However, there ARE scientists who dont like to admit when they are wrong, and who dont want to hear different ideas that might contradict their own...but those types go against the whole idea of scientific learning.

This little article is a good example of what scientists SHOULD be doing...they did their work, figured out what they thought would happen...but then they turned out to be wrong. Ok. So now they get back to work and figure out WHY they were wrong. Thats the normal process.

Oops. Change "proposed" to "earned".

"Scientists are wrong much of the time. They are also right much of the time. I believe that ratio of right:wrong hovers around 42:42 which is equivalently 1:1, so they are right about as often as they are wrong."

some guy:

oh you're so subtle and mysterious.

if paul wants to gloat about how stupid scientists are because of this example...well thats up to him. what that means is that he doesnt understand the whole process of science. or maybe you dont.

darwin wasnt right all the time. gregor mendel wasnt either. einstein? nope.

assuming that people are stupid because they arent always right is pretty faulty logic.

However, there ARE scientists who dont like to admit when they are wrong, and who dont want to hear different ideas that might contradict their own...but those types go against the whole idea of scientific learning.

It's true.

a scientist was baffled not wrong.

now, why there was no tsunami, it has to do with plate techtonics. If the quake didn't cause techtonic shift, then there would be no displacement large enough or fast enough to create the wave.

However, warning everyone to run for the hills was a good thing, and since they did it this time there is no reason they shouldn't have done it back in december when it would have counted.

science does something that religion does not. it weighs facts and evidence in its decisions.

wingnut

Clearly the lack of a tsunami show MAJOR HOLES in plate tectonic theory. Yeah, right, all of these GZ's (Geology Zealots), these Quakers, claim that the surface of the earth consists of hard plates floating on the mantle.

See, there is NO PROOF of Plate Tectonic Theory. It's just a "theory." I don't buy it. A bunch of plates slipping around some so-called mantle? Ya know what I think? The plates would get cracked! Just like those silly scientists who try to prevent other points of view. THEY'RE CRACKED TOO!!

Quakers!

The majority of the engery from this latest earthquake was directed toward the south, thus averting the possibility of a major tsunami.

Tsumani Fears Ease

In the event my Link Posting Fails

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_050328_tsunami_ease.html

areaman: Don't take the bait. :)

Yikes: Speaking of strawmen.

I don't recall ever saying scientists were dumb or stupid. You guys are funny. Obsessively compulsive, but funny. (smile)

Some Guy,

Would you be kind enough to include the full point of my post rather than edit without required context? Remember, there's a bit of facetiousness in there, so when you pull out the humor from the main point, you twist my intent. If you've ever had your intent twisted, you know how painful that can be.

andy:

damn! lol

Paul:

I don't recall ever saying scientists were dumb or stupid. You guys are funny. Obsessively compulsive, but funny. (smile)

You're right, you didnt. "Some guy" was quoting everyone else and attempting to make a point, and was assuming that based on this article you (Paul) could go around saying that scientists are stupid...

Confusing. "Some guy" doesnt like to come right out and say things, for some reason.

Anyway Paul, I know that you dont think that scientists are all stupid.

I believe Mojo is right on

when Canadian radio was covering the earthquake, firstly, they were saying this was an aftershock from the major earthquake on Boxing Day,

they were commenting on who knew aftershocks could take that long

secondly the expert they had on air said they didn't have any information as to whether it was a vertical or horizontal ground shift and that would determine whether there was likely to be a tsunami wave...

Paul:

A scientist was wrong? Boy- whoda thunk it.

So?

Confusing. "Some guy" doesnt like to come right out and say things, for some reason.

You fellas are doing just fine.

Paul,

My question is this: Do you have a point beside "Scientists arent always right?"

Just wondering.

RE: Some Guy's post (March 29, 2005 02:32 PM)
"fellas are ... fine."

Thank you for sharing that with us, Some Guy.

PS - You mean that wasn't your intent? Oops.

AnonymousDrivel:

lol

Stimulus, response. Stimulus, response.

A great many of the commenters taking issue with this post are exhibiting symptoms allegedly associated with PVS...

How about this headline:

"Creation Scientists Unsure Whether Apple Was Metaphor Or Not"

Dateline The Bible Belt: Creation Scientists released a statement Tuesday that they are still unclear whether or not the "apple" that Adam and Eve ate in the Garden of Eden was an actual apple, or just a literary device. Despite re-reading Genesis multiple times, even upside down, the "scientists" could find no answers. The hot question in thier "lab" these days is this: if the apple was just a literary device, how could Adam have bit into it? Does that mean that there may have been other literary devices in the sacred texts? The debate has the Creation Science communtiy in an uproar.

That was just for fun.

RE: McGehee's post (March 29, 2005 02:53 PM)
Stimulus, response. Stimulus, response.

A great many of the commenters taking issue with this post are exhibiting symptoms allegedly associated with PVS...

In the spirit of your post, at least there is a response. And does the Schiavo subtext need to enter practically every thread?

Megehee:

A great many of the commenters taking issue with this post are exhibiting symptoms allegedly associated with PVS...

All I'm wondering is whether Paul has another point he's trying to make, or not.

I think God must have created an anti-tsunami to cancel out the one the scientists knew was going to happen. That way everybody can be happy.

While tsunami is the official term,