Re: Tsunamis, etc

[brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>]

At 12:55 4/1/98 -0700, you wrote:

> Many/most/all oceanographers hold that a tidal "wave" can not run faster than
> sqrt(gd).  (ie 400-500mi/hr)  See the citations on the web page noted above
> for derivations and other confirmations of this relation.
>
> ... He [David] does agree, I think,  that in the case of a tsunami -- a
pulsed
> wave -- this might well be valid, but for a _driven_ wave such as a purported
> "tidal bulge", it is not. ...

> I wish that I could resolve this mish mash.   Can anyone help????  

> Jim green
> JMGreen@sisna.com
>    
> http://www.sisna.com/users/jmgreen

Jim seems sometimes to treat tide and wave as synonymous - this is the
conflict
that I observed and he acknowledges.

David sometimes seems to treat the tidal force, the elastic or plastic strain
on solid materials and the ocean tidal range as (almost) interchangeable,
which disturbs Jim - and he is not alone.

 The world map depicting cotides supports Jim's position on the low
correlation of tide and Lunar transit. (I have a nasty suspicion that this
depiction is misleading)

 The data available even on my shelves would support a rather significant
spectral correlation between Lunar orbital period and tidal period for some
locations and a rather low correlation for other locations. (That is one
reason why worthy people can disagree in good faith).

 What is needed is a whole-Earth time depiction of the ocean mass involved
in tides. (As I have remarked before, we have in our hands data depicting
Solar
mean surface velocities depicting breathing and higher modes, so I decline
to believe that such surface-integrated data are not available for the Earth's
ocean surface).

The natural owner of such data is NASA and an enquiry at JPL seems like a
reasonable starting point. Is there any kind soul for whom JPL is a local
call, or who has a contact there?

Whatcott     Altus OK