We have one for this happening in lakes – seiche. I was almost caught in one of these in Lake Michigan – water came up over the breakwater where we had just been.
RealityChuck -
Scientific terms are not arbitrary, however much you might like to believe them to be so. They need to have a specific meaning so that it is crystal clear what is meant.
You may not have said that “tidal wave” needs to refer to true tidal phenomena, but it is obvious - even in this thread - that the potential for confusion exists. Hence the move to another term, tsunami, which is* universally recognized by the global geologic community* as referring to a seismic sea wave. Only by continuing to use the term which has been agreed upon by consensus (your own requirement!) can we educate the lay public into dropping the term now considered by earth scientists to be obsolete and incorrect. I don’t see why that is difficult to understand.
I mentioned why Brontosaurus is no longer a valid term, but allow me to spell it out further:
- incomplete fossil was discovered, formally described (to the best of the paleontologists’ ability, given the skeleton incompleteness), named Apatosaurus, and tucked away in a museum vault
- another incomplete fossil was later discovered, formally described (to the best of the paleontologists’ ability, given the skeleton incompleteness) and named Brontosaurus
- years later, paleontologist reviewing the Apatosaurus fossil realizes that this is actually the creature that has been more recently referred to as Brontosaurus
- in paleontological/biological convention, the name first given to the first described specimen has precedence
- as much as people might have been used to Brontosaurus, convention requires the use of Apatosaurus as the correct name
- Brontosaurus is now considered by scientists to be obsolete and incorrect
In a similar way:
- Japan has a centuries-long history of dealing with earthquakes and observations that abnormally large waves can come into their harbors right afterward
- the Japanese use the term tsunami to describe this specific type of wave
- English-speaking earth scientists in the 1800’s create the term “tidal wave” to describe a high water wave, and later apply it to the earthquake-induced phenomenon when they encounter it (see the definition of tidal wave on this page of the Online Etymological Dictionary if you would like a cite)
- 20th century earth scientists become aware of the Japanese term, and, since tsunami has been used exclusively to describe seismic sea waves, adopt it for use within the scientific community
- “tidal wave” as a term for seismic sea wave is considered obsolete and incorrect
FWIW, I’m a geologist by education and trade. If the global geologic community decided - after much discussion - that tsunami was an unclear term and “gigunda wave” was somehow more appropriate, then that is the term I would need to use. However, that’s not likely to happen since tsunami is perfectly appropriate, given its historic usage and exclusive application.
Your insistence that the term “tidal wave” is arbitrary and therefore okay to use does not jibe with scientific community usage, and doesn’t make sense to me.
Since seiches are oscillating waves, they need to occur in enclosed basins like lakes, and they aren’t the sort of “one-off” wave or series of waves that tsunamis are. (Note that “seiche” is a French word. Oops, there we go borrowing foreign words again!)
“Rogue wave” or “freak wave” is a term applied to sudden large waves that can appear in the oceans and perhaps on the Great Lakes, and may be caused by the interactions of surface currents or smaller waves. These do not need a specific cause like a landslide to come into being.
Some minor corrections:
- incomplete fossil was discovered, formally described (in a rather poor fashion, composed of little more than a couple of paragraphs and no illustrations), named Apatosaurus ajax.
- Two years later, another incomplete fossil was even more poorly described in, again, a mere two paragraphs, and with even less detail than that given to Apatosaurus). This specimen was given the genus Brontosaurus.
- Years later, a paleontologist reviewing the two fossils concluded that the Apatosaurus specimen likely represented a juvenile form, while the Brontosaurus specimen represented an adult form, of the same species.
- At the time, strict priority in biological nomenclature governed how such instances were to be treated. Brontosaurus was thus considered a junior synonym of Apatosaurus, and the latter became the official scientific name of the animal. An important note, however, is that ten years later, an addendum to the nomenclature rules, called the Plenary Powers Rule, was established, whereby names in common usage could “override” strict priority (this is why Boa constrictor is not now known as Boa canina, which by strict priority, it should be). Had this rule been in place upon re-examination of the Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus specimens, Brontosaurus likely would have remained intact, and Apatosaurus would have been relegated to synonomy (especially considering Brontosaurus was more descriptive and accurate than Apatosaurus is for the beast).
- Because of the rules in place at the time, then, we know know “Brontosaurus” as Apatosaurus, but it didn’t have to be that way. It was largely a matter of timing that resulted in the name change.
One of the chief differences between the Apato-Bronto case and “Tidal Wave” vs. “tsunami” is that there isn’t, to my knowledge, any sort of official body governing the application of terms for seismic events as there is with biological nomenclature. And many biological names would actually make more sense if strcit priority didn’t play such a major role, whereas geological terms are likely to be accepted or rejected based more on accuracy than on priority.
Sunfish: We get the point. The decision of oceanographic geologists is that the long-wavelength waves generated by seismic events are properly termed tsunamis rather than “tidal waves,” and never mind the Japanese literal derivation of the term. However, “tidal wave” is known by every scientifically minded third-grader to have nothing to do with the tides, but to mean what is technically termed a tsunami – just as it’s the rare homophobe who has an irrational fear of gay people, yet the term has taken on a specific meaning divorced of its derivation, as have “tidal wave” and “tsunami.”
BTW, an alternate term for sauropod is “brontosaur” – and Brontosaurus is an IPU synonym for Apatosaurus, which is of course the legitimate genus name for the genus into which the specimens named Brontosaurus by their discoverers fall. Should someone in the future decide that Apatosaurus is too broad a genus and cause it to be broken down, Brontosaurus could easily be resurrected as the proper name for one genus of the cluster of genera which we presently incorporate into genus Apatosaurus.
Terminology has significance only insofar as there’s common consent as to what it means. I’ve been involved in a multi-month discussion with other Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, and Orthodox over the meaning of the term “Apostolic Succession” and to which churches it legitimatly applies. Saying “‘tidal wave’ is an incorrect term” is valid nly from the perspective of what the geologic and oceanographic communities have decided to reference seismic sea waves as; it retains the precise meaning, not related to tides or to tidal bores, that it has had as a popular synonym for tsunami, just as everybody in this thread was perfectly well aware that “Brontosaurus” meant “a particular heavy-built, long-necked, long-tailed sauropod of genus Apatosaurus” without anyone having to spell it out.
Last summer, my grandson informed me in tears that [an object he was playing with] had “hit me on the end of my bug.” I did not explain to him that the proper term was glans penis but knew precisely what he was talking about, comforted him, and had his mother doublecheck to ensure that there was no bruising or other damage. I trust you see the point of that anecdote.
For the record, I do not see Reality Chuck claiming that “tidal wave” is “OK to use,” he is simply remarking that the apparent etymology of both words does not provide an inherently superior position to either of them.
OTOH, the OED supports the conclusion that “tidal wave” was assigned in error, citing its use prior to the 1870s to refer to waves generated by tides and then specifically noting its first use in referring to earthquake generated waves is erron.
(And in Bully for Brontosaurus, S. J. Gould noted that the paleontological community reserves the right to choose brontosaurus over apatasaurus, but that they have simply not found it worth the effort and furor to do so.)
(And I’m using the 1919 edition oof the OED, so that is not a recent lexicological decision.)
Thank you for the detailed info, Darwin’s Finch. I had a feeling you might be dropping by. 
Agreement on official terms in geology can come through a variety of means. In the case of “tsunami,” the NOAA FAQ mentions formal adoption of the term at an international scientific conference in 1963 (although a search of GeoREF’s database suggests perhaps it was the Tenth Pacific Science Conference, held in Hawaii in 1961 but with proceedings published in 1963). Stratigraphic terms are defined formally by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, petrological terms are decided by the IUGS Commission on Systematics in Petrology, and so on.
In general, if there is a need to agree on a new term for something, there are a bunch of people on a committee that get to vote after feedback from the community at large, and the process can take a considerable time. My former advisor was involved with the committee selected to decide on a formal definition and name for the last period of the Neoproterozoic Era - it took them about 15 years to finally do so.
I would of course not object to jokelhaup, since my objection was to the use of tsunami for inappropriate phenomena. We need more precision here, not less.
I agree completely. But we also need a generic term for any “dangerous, suddenly-appearing, large mass of water”. A term inclusive of tidal bore, tsunami, jokelhaup, flash flood, and seiche.
I suggest “Sploosh.”
I see the point of your anecdote, Polycarp,, but your grandson sounds like a small child. From my perspective, it’s like the difference between letting a small child use a term like “bug” for their penis, and listening to an adult male talk about their “pee pee” (for example) and say that it is an equally appropriate term for someone their age, just because I knew what he was referring to.
I felt I needed to reiterate my point because RealityChuck didn’t seem to understand, and if he didn’t, perhaps I didn’t express myself well enough. I also understand very well the dichotomy between popular usage of a term and scientific usage. However, since the scientists are the ones determining the term to use - for a scientific phenomenon - I don’t see the problem in trying to steer the general public toward using the term the scientific community uses. It’s really not that difficult.
What you suggest, to me, is equivalent to a non-Christian telling you and your fellow discussants to which church “Apostolic Succession” should apply. I trust you see the point of my comment.
No one thinks that “tidal waves” are created by a sort of tidal mechanism- except as much as “tidal” refers to the ocrean in general. No one thinks that “Grape Nuts” are nuts growing from grape trees, either. :rolleyes: “Tsunami” is as incorrect or even more so- such waves are not caused by harbors, are they? Anyone who would think that "seismic sea waves’ are cause dby tides because of the term ‘tidal wave’ would be as confused that the waves are caused by harbors because of the term “harbor wave”. Which is exactly why dudes don’t use “Harbor wave” but instead use the japanese word “tsunami” as if we knew what the word really meant- there’d be as much- if not more- chance for confusion.
“Tsunami” is used- untranslated- as it makes dudes think they sound highbrow to use a foriegn word- when in fact a perfectly good English phrase exists. If you transalated it into "Harbor wave’ you’d sound silly- and it’d be even more likely to be confused.
“Tidal wave” is perfectly fine, as just as “accurate” as “tsunami”. “Seismic sea wave” is a better term yet, but it does not cover every type of Tidal wave. If you really just wanted to be accurate, you’d use "Seismic sea wave’ now wouldn’t you? (That is- to refer to most of the waves called Tidal waves- those which are caused by seismic forces)
Sunfish: You talk about “The decision of oceanographic geologists …” (Actually Polycarps words, but your post said so in many many more words)- really? All of them? They took a binding vote? No dissenters? The “International league” said so, and will send out guys to break kneecaps if you use “tidal wave”? :dubious: :rolleyes: In other words- Sez who?
DrDeth - I’m not going to address most of your post, because I think I’ve already said what I needed to, in apparently too long-winded a fashion. If I do it again Polycarp will come back and beat me with a stick. 
In this case, sez the attendees of the tsunami meetings at the Tenth Pacific Science Conference held in 1961. These would not have been random people, but researchers already involved in studying the phenomenon in Hawaii and Japan in particular. Generally speaking, the people invited to take part in such meetings and committees are those who have spent a signficant part of their careers on the subject, so they would be better informed than anyone else (including other geologists) about how to define something.
In any committee, there will be dissenters. However, when the committee or group charged with the task of coming to a consensus does so, then the broader community does in fact accept it and goes on with business. Just like political elections, eh? No one will break kneecaps of dissenters, :rolleyes: but I can assure you that a geologist using the term “tidal wave” at a scientific conference or in a manuscript submitted to a journal will be corrected by their peers and (at least privately) thought to be something of a tool.
Yeah yeah, those are scientists, not the general public. But what’s wrong with trying to educate the general public?
[SIZE=1]Good God, what have I started?[/SIZE]
A wave of posts of tsunamic proportions!
::: brandishes ruler filched from nun, looks meaningfully at Sunfish 
:::
Bottom line, StuyGuy, is that science journalists are using the term they have been taught by scientists. It’s just taking some time to get around in general.
The rest of this is just a bit of banter, especially compared to some GD threads I have seen. ::: looks meaningfully at Polycarp :::
Um…cite?
Children in elementary school are taught that a “tide” is a change in the level of the ocean, caused by the moon. They they encounter the term “tidal wave.” When I heard “tidal wave” as a youngster (and I was a most assuredly scientific-minded child), I definitely thought it was related to tides, and it was confusing to hear that they were talking about something different. If I recall correctly, we were talking about the explosion of Krakatoa, so the so-called “tidal wave” was caused by a volcanic eruption.
The term “tidal wave” is misleading, no matter what RealityChuck says. When I was in elementary school 35 years ago, it was used to refer to darned near any big wave. “Tsunami” is much less ambiguous, so why not use it?
Sure- but by what right does “Tenth Pacific Science Conference held in 1961” speak for all scientists? And was it a binding resolution, or just a “hey, we like this word better, it’s cool” type of thing?
And there is nothing wrong with “trying to educate the general public”- but in this case, the 'education" seems to be that primarily of style, not substance. It’s like when they try to change the name of 'starfish" to “seastars”. Unnessesary, and condescending.
We have two words for the same thing.
In science, as in journalism, it is nice to have one word to avoid confusion and simplify matters.
Tsunami was more widely used and had a longer history. They went with Tsunami.
Now, if we want to talk about every new outlet saying “Madras” instead of “Chennai”…
Y’know, this Equus caballus mortuus has now been trummelled with long rods and hammered with blunt objects.
Do you all want to have me kill the thread or move it to GD or IMHO for further abuse?