• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

8.0 Magnitude Earthquake hits Alaska

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Developing!
http://news.yahoo.com/local-tsunami...-213927220.html;_ylt=AwrBEiEUoKhTgzUAfuHQtDMD

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A local tsunami warning was issued after an 8.0 magnitude earthquake struck in the Pacific Ocean west of Alaska's Aleutian Islands on Monday, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Tsunami Warning Center said.

The warning covered coastal areas of Alaska from Nikolski to Attu, the center said, adding the level of tsunami danger was being evaluated for other U.S. and Canadian Pacific coasts.

The quake struck about 14 miles (23 km) southeast of Little Sitkin Island, Alaska, at a depth of about 71 miles (114 km), USGS said.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
TSUNAMI WARNINGS:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...e-near-alaska-earthquake-2014-alaska-tsunami/


ALEUTIAN ISLANDS (CBS SF) — A tsunami warning has been issued for parts of Alaska after a magnitude 8.0 earthquake was recorded near Little Sitkin Island. Additional aftershocks as large as magnitude 5.9 and 6.0 continue to rock the Aleutian Islands, some closer to populated areas.

Tsunami.gov issued the alert for coastal areas of Alaska, warning that “significant inundation is possible or is already occurring.” Residents of the area were being warned to move inland, or to higher ground.

Seismographs originally measured the quake as a 7.1 but the U.S. Geological Survey quickly upgraded that number to an 8.0. That’s a departure from the usual pattern where quakes are more often downgraded. An 8.0 quake is exponentially stronger.

The extreme depth of the quake at 68 miles deep prevented a more widespread Pacific-wide tsunami.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center does warn that some coastal areas in Alaska and the Northwest may experience “non-destructive sea level changes” for several hours.
The earthquake was reported at 11:53 a.m. local time.

Another massive quake, this one registering 6.9 struck just before the Alaska quake on the polar opposite side of the ocean, north of New Zealand.

Alaska is prone to the most devastating tsunamis known. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the 1964 earthquake and tsunami that destroyed so much of Alaska, and sent a series of deadly waves down the coast, wiping out much of Crescent City, California.

One of the largest mega-waves ever recorded–at 1,720 feet–devastated Alaska’s Lituya Bay in 1958. The height of the wave was measured by the devastation on both sides of the headlands, where trees were stripped or ripped from their roots. The inlet has a shape nearly perfectly constructed to amplify the power of massive earthquakes, in addition to the glacial activity following an earthquake creating massive landslides and glacial calving.

 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Just got off the phone with Snowtrac Nome aka Don...

Everything is fine up his way. No big waves at all... And the warning is now canceled..

Regards, Kirk
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
the earthquake was deep at 75 miles, and in an un inhabited area we were about 500 miles away so we didn't even feel it. I can only imagine that the folks living on the Aleutian chain and Kodiak might have got rocked pretty good. the epicenter was just off rat island on the north side which means if I look out over the beach front if I could see over the horizon that I would be looking at it. this is in the same general area where there have been several recent volcano eruptions.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Given the size of that quake, and given that it was underwater, its a damn good thing it was not closer to any population centers. The wave from that size quake, if it had been 50 or 100 miles from a large coastal area, could have devastated the shoreline cities.
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
you are right had it been in south central where there are high bluffs and mountains on the coast line a land slide above the water, or under water could have been catastrophic . lucky the bering sea is relatively flat and shallow.
 
Top