Tsunami timeline question:

[wonder9]

I posted this question on another forum, which was dumb, because it really fits here. Anyway...
Help me out with the tsunami timeline. How long was it between:

A) The sea receding prior to the first wave

B) The first wave hitting

C) The subsequent waves hitting

I mean at any one place, not the actual first wave of the tsunami tragedy. I'm puzzled by the number of reports of people going out on the exposed ocean floor to pick stuff up. I don't understand how much time was passing.

[don't ask]

I believe that I heard on TV tonight that it was about 30 seconds from the sea receding to the first wave.

What amazes me about all this is that I had seen a TV documentary about tsunamis years ago (even my 16 year old son remembers watching it) and it discussed everything that happened. The program featured people who had sen the sea recede, realised that a tsunami was coming and had run to safety.

I have not seen a single account where anyone knew what was happening on 26/12. I would have been running around tellinmg people to get out of there, evenb the idiots taking video footage. It amazes me that so few people could know about earthquakes and tsunamis and live on the coast.

[KGS]

Originally Posted by don't ask

I have not seen a single account where anyone knew what was happening on 26/12. I would have been running around tellinmg people to get out of there, evenb the idiots taking video footage. It amazes me that so few people could know about earthquakes and tsunamis and live on the coast.

I've seen a couple reports like that. One was a 10-year-old girl who recognized the ocean receding as a warning sign from a Discovery Kids program or something along those lines. She warned the resort manager, and happily, the manager took her seriously and told everyone to evacuate the beach.

Another was a small island village off the coast of Indonesia which had been out of contact for several days and was feared lost. When rescuers finally made contact, they were amazed to find nearly everyone alive! Turns out the village had a history of tsunamis and they had gotten in the habit of running for the hills every time there's an earthquake. (Now that's Darwinism in action!)

[TellMeI'mNotCrazy]

There are also reports of a group in Thailand called the Morgan Sea Gypsies, who also knew that a receding tide meant imminent danger, and were able to flee to safer ground.

Link to CNN article.]"The elders told us that if the water recedes fast it will reappear in the same quantity in which it disappeared," 65-year-old village chief Sarmao Kathalay told the paper.

So while in some places along the southern coast, Thais headed to the beach when the sea drained out of beaches -- the first sign of the impending tsunami -- to pick up fish left flapping on the sand, the gypsies headed for the hills.

[jester21]

Originally Posted by KGS

Turns out the village had a history of tsunamis and they had gotten in the habit of running for the hills every time there's an earthquake. (Now that's Darwinism in action!)

That or it is a learned reaction from watching Lemmings

(humans are smarter than lemmings (i assume anyway) so take running into the ocean for population control, into population salvation and run AWAY from the ocean..... ok... not a very funny joke.... they can't ALL be zingers. )

[wonder9]

But that doesn't sound like 30 seconds. If a girl was able to see the receding water and run and tell and the manager tells everyone else...that seems like it must have taken longer that 30 seconds. People went and got their cameras. They walked out to pick stuff off of the ground. That's why I puzzled over the timeline.

[Colophon]

Certainly there are reports and photos of people wandering around on the exposed sea bed after the "tide went out", so it was a lot more than 30 seconds.

For example go to http://www.asiantsunamivideos.com and look at the first video. This lasts over 3 minutes and at the start the sea has clearly already receded (that is why the guy was filming) and by the end the wave has still not hit (the guy is running for it by this point).

So 30 seconds seems an exaggeration, although of course it could vary depending on the local topography.

[Sunspace]

What I'm wondering is, were there any effects on the west coast of Australia?

[Colophon]

Originally Posted by Sunspace

What I'm wondering is, were there any effects on the west coast of Australia?

Not really. This plot of wave height shows the wave was only around a foot high at most in northwestern Australia. That coast is mostly fairly sparsley populated; there were no reports of casualties AFAIK.

It looks from that map like most of the tsunami's force was directed westwards, although obviously Sumatra and Thailand to the east and north got hit badly too.

Incidentally, while Googling to see if i could get more details, the first hit I got for tsunami "western australia" was this restaurant: http://www.tsunamisushi.com.au/ Wonder how their trade is lately?

[Sunspace]

Thanks, Colophon! I didn't realise it was that far from the epicentre to Australia.

[don't ask]

Strangely Australia has 2 territories right in the tsunami zone - Cocos Islands and Christmas Island. The Cocos Islands are mostly less than 6 feet above sea level, the highest point is about 15 feet above sea level. The Australian media did not mention the effects in these two places for days. Admittedly there was no loss of life but I would have expected at least a sentence to that effect since I had expected everyone there to be killed. Since the northern face of Christmas Island is sheer cliffs they would have been fine.

[HeyHomie]

[quote=KGS]I've seen a couple reports like that. One was a 10-year-old girl who recognized the ocean receding as a warning sign from a Discovery Kids program or something along those lines. She warned the resort manager, and happily, the manager took her seriously and told everyone to evacuate the beach.
QUOTE]

I read a similar report about a 10-year-old British girl who had, a few months earlier, turned in a research report about tsunamis.