Barry Arm

SmokeRoss

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,711
Reaction score
424
Location
Alaska
I'm wondering if they should just pull the band-aid so to speak. In other words, if we are only prolonging the inevitable, wouldn't it be advantageous to plan an intentional collapse of the slide area by using dynamite/explosives etc. Before you all scream out that I am stupid, answer me this, wouldn't be better for this to happen knowingly when people could evacuated safely and perhaps the city of Whittier can build sea walls or some other type of mitigation strategy and just get it done and over with. Just food for thought.

I was thinking similar thoughts. Let the Air Force target it. Of course the ensuing tsunami would undoubtedly cause a ton of lawsuits. But if mother nature does it, who ya gonna sue?
 

anchskier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
267
I'm wondering if they should just pull the band-aid so to speak. In other words, if we are only prolonging the inevitable, wouldn't it be advantageous to plan an intentional collapse of the slide area by using dynamite/explosives etc. Before you all scream out that I am stupid, answer me this, wouldn't be better for this to happen knowingly when people could evacuated safely and perhaps the city of Whittier can build sea walls or some other type of mitigation strategy and just get it done and over with. Just food for thought.

On the surface, that seems like a logical idea, but you have to also consider that there isn't 100% certainty that a tsunami will occur at all. There is always a chance that it just continues to slowly slip until it eventually stops at the bottom and no catastrophic failure. Intentionally setting it off guarantees a huge amount of damage. Not an easy situation no matter how you look at it.
 

Patsfan54

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
244
Location
Alaska
On the surface, that seems like a logical idea, but you have to also consider that there isn't 100% certainty that a tsunami will occur at all. There is always a chance that it just continues to slowly slip until it eventually stops at the bottom and no catastrophic failure. Intentionally setting it off guarantees a huge amount of damage. Not an easy situation no matter how you look at it.

The guy leading this research, he's from Seldovia, said basically what you just said. They could also use all kinds of explosives and have nothing happen and then a day or a year later it drops off creating a tsunami and then who's to blame. Plus good luck getting the Forest Circus and whoever else to issue the permits you would need. It would be really cool to see them blowing it up though!
 

dreamalaska

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
41
Reaction score
2
Location
Anchorage
Don’t ever let the government blow anything up unless it’s the military aiming at enemy targets. You guys may be too young to remember this infamous fiasco, but it damn near killed some bystanders (and took out a nice Oldsmobile 98):<br/>https://www.opb.org/artsandlife/series/history/florence-oregon-whale-explosion-history/<br/><br/><br/>Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Patsfan54

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
244
Location
Alaska
The USGS has released their new analysis and it looks far less catastrophic than previous estimates.

Waves from a potential landslide into the Barry Arm of Prince William Sound could reach heights up to 7-feet just offshore Whittier, according to a new report by the U.S. Geological Survey. This “worst-case scenario” is much less severe than the preliminary 30-foot-high wave assessment previously issued by an interdisciplinary team of scientists in 2020. https://www.usgs.gov/news/potential-...ience_products

The main points of the report are as follows:
• Simulation of landslide motion and subsequent tsunami generation at Barry Arm was made possible by newly collected light detection and ranging (lidar) and bathymetric data.
• Specific treatment of landslide volume and mobility influences the tsunami height, with the largest and most mobile landslide scenario producing the largest wave, and all other scenarios producing similar but smaller waves.
• Our largest modeled wave heights result from the largest plausible failure volume and a highly mobile landslide. These wave heights are similar to the smallest wave scenario presented by Dai and others (2020), even though the landslide volume considered here is greater.
• The largest scenario results in a wave with just over 2 m of height 500 meters offshore Whittier, Alaska. This wave arrives in Whittier, Alaska, approximately 20 minutes (min) after initial landslide motion and peaks 26 min after initial motion. Simulated wave heights exceeding 5 m are common throughout Barry Arm and Harriman Fjord and peak within 10 min of initial landslide motion.
• The results presented here differ from the prior simulations presented in Dai and others (2020) because we are able to directly simulate the landslide entering the ocean. We also have current bathymetric data that were not yet available during the analysis included in their paper. We compared our results to these prior simulations by examining our simulated wave heights at the location where our simulated wave becomes coherent and directed down fjord (near Point Doran). At this location, the peak wave heights from our largest scenario are approximately 25 meters. On this basis, we conclude that our largest wave-generating scenario (C-689) is most directly comparable with the smallest scenario considered by Dai and others (2020), which used a 25-m initial wave crest height. When we compare our simulated gage traces at Whittier, Alaska, from scenario C-689 with the 25-m initial wave scenario (fig. S9 in Dai and others, 2020), we find both simulations yield a maximum wave height of around 2 m and a peak wave time of about 26 min.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2021/1071/ofr20211071.pdf
 
Last edited:

Nunya

New member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
202
Reaction score
7
Location
Sterling
Was just up there couple days ago picking up ice for the cooler.saw lots of boats and couple kayakers…seems lot of people not taking it too serious, including myself…could occur tomorrow or 20 years from now, who knows. Better chance of getting killed in a car wreck or by the China virus..
 

kwackkillncrew

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
206
Location
chugiak, ak
well if it does go and you are in your boat atleast 180' is generally about 20 seconds away. Its pretty crazy to think a tsunami could get cut in half by the point inbetween doron strait and port wells travel all the way down port wells, hang a 90 degree turn curve around passage and then hit whittier. seems like cochrane would or should get hit the hardest.
 

Daveinthebush

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
8,098
Reaction score
568
Location
Valdez, Alaska
I'm surprised that with all the rain that PWS has had just this month alone, that the ground isn't super saturated, and it hasn't slid. A friend in town has a rain gage and does reporting. Last week he posted that we have had over 12" of rain at that point.
 

NRick

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
86
Location
Anchorage
If that slides, most of it will end up on the glacier/land. Just eyeballing it this summer, I don't see the amount that would land in the water generating a wave big enough to severly impact Whittier. If you are anchored or camped on the shore near there, then that's another story.
 

iofthetaiga

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
9,369
Reaction score
875
Location
Tanana Valley AK
If that slides, most of it will end up on the glacier/land. Just eyeballing it this summer, I don't see the amount that would land in the water generating a wave big enough to severly impact Whittier. If you are anchored or camped on the shore near there, then that's another story.
So you're saying that if/when this six hundred million cubic meters of mountainside slides into Barry Arm, it's not going to displace the water of Barry Arm...and the hydrologists computer models of the resulting tsunami impact to PWS are wrong?:unsure:

Phew, that's a relief!

Screen Shot 2022-09-28 at 13.47.53 (1).jpeg
 

NRick

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
86
Location
Anchorage
Glad I could help relieve your anxiety. First, your oval needs to move a good bit to the right. At least half of what is sliding is over the glacier not water. Second, I never said Barry arm or even Harriman Fjord wouldn't have significant impacts from a slide. I said Whittier isn't going to see anything significant.

But, the thing is, all those hydrologist and their models don't know what will happen any more than I do.
 

iofthetaiga

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
9,369
Reaction score
875
Location
Tanana Valley AK
Glad I could help relieve your anxiety.
Actually, this potential event causes me no anxiety whatsoever, as I don't operate in the area of danger. I just find denialism entertaining. Even so, I wouldn't care one whit if it was only the denier who suffered the consequences. Unfortunately, the stupid shit denialists say is often taken seriously by others who then suffer the needless consequences.
I said Whittier isn't going to see anything significant.
What scientific basis do you have for making this statement?
 
Last edited:

NRick

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
86
Location
Anchorage
Actually, this potential event causes me no anxiety whatsoever, as I don't operate in the area of danger. I just find denialism entertaining. Even so, I wouldn't care one whit if it was only the denier who suffered the consequences. Unfortunately, the stupid shit denialists say is often taken seriously by others who then suffer the needless consequences.

What scientific basis do you have for making this statement?

"If that slides, most of it will end up on the glacier/land. Just eyeballing it this summer, I don't see the amount that would land in the water generating a wave big enough to severely impact Whittier. If you are anchored or camped on the shore near there, then that's another story."

Absolutely none what so ever and I said just that. If someone is making life decisions off what a guy on the internet says, I can't help them.
 

Top