16-Foot Tsunami Waves Detonate on Russian Coast (Watch)
However, in certain areas, there were significant, or abnormally large, waves that struck specific shores – like in close proximity to the tremor's epicenter in Kamchatka.
Below, check out footage from waves hitting the remote Russian peninsula.
Meteorologist Colin Myers commented: 'I've never seen tsunami waves before. This is remarkable. Following last week's massive earthquake (8.8MMW), these were the waves off the coast of northeastern Russia, much closer to the epicenter. Via Kamchatka Life. The power of water is enormous.'
According to Scientific American, the regions nearby to the quake were hit the hardest with subsequent tsunami waves – like 16-footers hitting the Kuril Islands just south of Kamchatka, as seen in the footage above.But why was the tsunami aspect of this earthquake – one of the largest in recorded history – so minimal? Diego Melgar, a scientist at the University of Oregon, said:
'Initial warnings are based only on the estimated size and location of the source, but this alone doesn't determine how much water is displaced or where waves will concentrate. To forecast impacts accurately, scientists need to know how much the fault slipped, over what area and how close to the trench the slip occurred.'
Still, why? All Pacific-facing communities were warned and primed for impending doom following the quake. Well, maybe we just got lucky…this time.
Scientific American continued: 'The answer, in short, is this: the specific fault that ruptured produced pretty much exactly the tsunami it was capable of making, even if we intuitively feel like the effect should have been worse.'
So, perhaps this was a test run, because in the future, there are certainly more to come.16-Foot Tsunami Waves Detonate on Russian Coast (Watch) first appeared on Surfer on Aug 6, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
8 hours ago
- Scientific American
Students Find Hidden Fibonacci Sequence in Classic Probability Puzzle
A variation of a puzzle called the 'pick-up sticks problem' asks the following question: If I have some number of sticks with random lengths between 0 and 1, what are the chances that no three of those sticks can form a triangle? It turns out the answer to this quandary has an unexpected parallel to a pattern found across nature. The Fibonacci sequence is an ordered collection of numbers in which each term is equal to the previous two added together. It goes like this: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13,..., and so on. These numbers show up practically everywhere. If you look at a plant with spirals, such as a pine cone or pineapple, more likely than not, the number of spirals going in each direction will be consecutive terms of the Fibonacci sequence. But a pair of young researchers were surprised to find that this pattern and the pick-up sticks problem are deeply connected. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The pick-up sticks problem is a variant of the 'broken stick problem,' which can be traced back to at least 1854. In its simplest iteration, the broken stick problem asks the likelihood that a stick broken randomly into three pieces can form a triangle. (In the pick-up stick problem, the lengths don't need to add up to a particular whole, so the possible lengths are distributed differently.) More than a century later, in the October 1959 issue of Scientific American, Martin Gardner wrote about the broken stick problem for his Mathematical Games column. Gardner highlighted it as a classic example of the counterintuitive nature of problems in probability and statistics. In a preprint paper posted to the server in May, the young researchers and their collaborators explore a new variation of the pick-up sticks problem. This effort started when Arthur Sun, a first-year undergraduate student at the University of Cambridge, thought up a problem for a university math contest. What is the likelihood, he wondered, that out of four sticks with random lengths between 0 and 1, no three could make a triangle? He enlisted the help of his friend Edward Wang, at the time a 12th grader at Scotch College, a secondary school in Australia, where he and Sun originally met. Together, Wang and Sun modeled the problem on their computers and ran random trials over and over, keeping track of the results of each trial. It seemed to the pair that four sticks could not make a triangle among them very close to one sixth of the time. Soon Wang and Sun started wondering what the answer was for larger groupings of sticks. They enlisted the help of David Treeby, a mathematician affiliated with Australia's Monash University and a teacher at Scotch College. The group ran even more simulations, and soon a pattern started to emerge. According to the researchers' simulations, if n was the number of sticks selected randomly, the chance of not having a valid triangle among them was the reciprocal of the first n Fibonacci numbers multiplied together. For instance, if you pick six sticks randomly, the probability that you cannot make a triangle with them is 1 / (1 × 1 × 2 × 3 × 5 × 8) = 1 ⁄ 240. The team was surprised that the famous sequence was connected to the triangle problem. 'We'd no reason to suspect that it would be,' Treeby says, 'but it was impossible that it wasn't.' The researchers began to develop a proof of why this connection must be true, but they needed an expert in statistics to pull it all together. They brought in a fourth collaborator, former Monash mathematician Aidan Sudbury. He'd been happily enjoying his retirement when the team approached him. 'I immediately was struck by what a charming problem it was,' he says. 'Delightful!' Together, the four researchers worked out a solid proof of the pattern that Sun and Wang had noticed. Though related results have been proved using similar methods and encompassing a wide array of stick-and-triangle problems, some experts in the field find this new paper's simplicity refreshing. 'What's nice about this is: it's very well written,' says Steven Miller, a mathematician at Williams College and president of the Fibonacci Association. 'It's accessible, it's easy to read, and it's extending a very famous problem.' To understand the pick-up sticks solution, think about the smallest possible case. Suppose you have three sticks with random sizes between 0 and 1. Any three sticks can form a triangle if, and only if, no stick is longer than the other two put together. If you have sticks of lengths 1, 2 and 300, no matter how wide an angle you put between them, the first two sticks could never stretch wide enough to accommodate the third. This is called 'the triangle inequality': if a, b and c represent the lengths of the sticks from shortest to longest, they will only fail to form a triangle when a + b ≤ c. To find the probability that three random lengths form a triangle, mathematicians can consider every set of three lengths as a point in three-dimensional space (for instance, lengths 1 ⁄ 2, 1 ⁄ 6 and 1 ⁄ 3 are represented by the point [ 1 ⁄ 2, 1 ⁄ 6, 1 ⁄ 3 ]). Because the lengths fall between 0 and 1, the set of all such points can be represented by a unit cube: Researchers then look at the subset of this cube where the points satisfy the triangle inequality—a shape that looks like this: With a little geometry, it turns out that this shape is exactly half the volume of the cube. Thus, three randomly picked lengths will be able to form a triangle exactly half of the time, as 1 / (1 × 1 × 2) = 1 ⁄ 2. Where does Fibonacci come in? Suppose a collection of any number of sticks is ordered from shortest to longest. If no three among them form a triangle, each stick's length must be greater than or equal to the sum of the previous two—otherwise, those three sticks could make a triangle. In the Fibonacci sequence, each number is precisely equal to the sum of the previous two. In other words, each segment of the Fibonacci sequence is as close as possible to having a triangle in it without actually having one. In Treeby's words, 'If we [avoid triangles] greedily, the Fibonacci sequence appears naturally.' The researchers feel there should be some path directly from this insight to a proof of the pick-up sticks theorem. They couldn't find one, however. 'We sort of hoped to find something that was a little bit more ... intuitive, but we couldn't formalize our thinking,' Treeby says. Instead their paper uses integrals to calculate the high-dimensional volumes directly—a method a bit like looking at the area inside the cube above (but without the visual reference). The researchers aren't on the prowl for a different proof right now—but they hope someone else might find one.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Blue whales have gone silent. Why that has scientists worried about Earth's biggest animals ... and the ocean
Blue whales — the largest animals on Earth — aren't singing as much anymore, and that's got scientists concerned. A study published in PLOS analyzing six years' worth of acoustic data collected from the ocean's floor found that blue whale vocalizations have been decreasing as the animal's food sources have disappeared. The monitor — a hydrophone sitting on the sea floor off the coast of California — collected sounds from the various creatures in the ocean, including multiple whale species. By coincidence, the recordings began during a marine heatwave that is unprecedented in modern times. According to the study, the heatwave reduced the amount of krill available for blue whales to consume. As the krill disappeared, so too did the blue whale songs. Over the course of the acoustic collection, blue whale songs deceased by approximately 40 percent. 'When you really break it down, it's like trying to sing while you're starving,' John Ryan, a biological oceanographer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute told National Geographic. 'They were spending all their time just trying to find food.' The marine heating event began in 2013, when a stubborn, dense pool of hot water — later dubbed "The Blob" — moved from the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska down the eastern North American coast. In some places the ocean temperatures were more than 4.5 Fahrenheit above average due to the heating. The Blob grew and covered a 500 mile wide and 300 feet deep region in the Pacific Ocean. By 2016, it covered approximately 2,000 miles of the Pacific Ocean. The increase in temperature allowed for toxic algae blooms that killed off krill — tiny, shrimp like creatures — and other marine life. 'When we have these really hot years and marine heatwaves, it's more than just temperature,' Kelly Benoit-Bird, a Monterey Bay Aquarium marine biologist and co-author of the paper told National Geographic. 'The whole system changes, and we don't get the krill. So the animals that rely only on krill are kind of out of luck.' The blue whales were among those animals who were out of luck. They feed on densely packed krill — their huge mouths take in thousands of gallons of water at once, sucking in enormous numbers of the tiny creatures — but without krill present, they went hungry. Ryan said the whales have stopped singing because they're "spending all their energy searching" for food. "There's just not enough time left over—and that tells us those years are incredibly stressful," he said. Climate change, driven by the human burning of fossil fuels, will only make the situation worse, the researchers warn. The world's oceans already absorb more than 90 percent of the excess heat from climate change. 'There are whole ecosystem consequences of these marine heat waves,' continues Benoit-Bird. 'If they can't find food, and they can traverse the entire West Coast of North America, that is a really large-scale consequence.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
16-Foot Tsunami Waves Detonate on Russian Coast (Watch)
For the most part, following Russia's massive, 8.8-magnitude earthquake last month, the resulting threat of tsunami waves permeating throughout the Pacific Ocean, and toppling coastal communities, was of little-to-no consequence. However, in certain areas, there were significant, or abnormally large, waves that struck specific shores – like in close proximity to the tremor's epicenter in Kamchatka. Below, check out footage from waves hitting the remote Russian peninsula. Meteorologist Colin Myers commented: 'I've never seen tsunami waves before. This is remarkable. Following last week's massive earthquake (8.8MMW), these were the waves off the coast of northeastern Russia, much closer to the epicenter. Via Kamchatka Life. The power of water is enormous.' According to Scientific American, the regions nearby to the quake were hit the hardest with subsequent tsunami waves – like 16-footers hitting the Kuril Islands just south of Kamchatka, as seen in the footage why was the tsunami aspect of this earthquake – one of the largest in recorded history – so minimal? Diego Melgar, a scientist at the University of Oregon, said: 'Initial warnings are based only on the estimated size and location of the source, but this alone doesn't determine how much water is displaced or where waves will concentrate. To forecast impacts accurately, scientists need to know how much the fault slipped, over what area and how close to the trench the slip occurred.' Still, why? All Pacific-facing communities were warned and primed for impending doom following the quake. Well, maybe we just got lucky…this time. Scientific American continued: 'The answer, in short, is this: the specific fault that ruptured produced pretty much exactly the tsunami it was capable of making, even if we intuitively feel like the effect should have been worse.' So, perhaps this was a test run, because in the future, there are certainly more to come.16-Foot Tsunami Waves Detonate on Russian Coast (Watch) first appeared on Surfer on Aug 6, 2025
