Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   In 1958 the largest wave ever recorded reached a height of 1720 feet in Lituya Bay, Alaska. Pair of surfers seen arguing handcuffed on the beach   (medium.com) divider line
    More: Scary, night of July, Earthquake, largest recorded wave, massive earthquake, Empire State Building, frame of reference, Richter scale, Alaska  
•       •       •

1555 clicks; posted to STEM » on 20 Jun 2021 at 8:20 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



38 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-06-20 6:33:37 PM  
The Lituya Bay event is legendary in the North Pacific fishing community.
 
2021-06-20 6:36:01 PM  
Found a good retelling of what happened to the 3 trollers that were anchored in the bay when it happened.

http://www.sitnews.us/Kiffer/LituyaBa​y​/070808_lituya_bay.html
 
2021-06-20 6:40:15 PM  
1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-06-20 6:40:42 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-06-20 7:21:13 PM  

cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?


[Fark user image image 425x566]


My guess would be 1,720 Rhode Islands.
 
2021-06-20 8:22:13 PM  
1720 African swallows?
 
2021-06-20 8:23:23 PM  

FrancoFile: [Fark user image image 275x183]


Dammit.. I'm too slow.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-06-20 8:33:42 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-06-20 8:42:15 PM  
Cenotaph Island

*read in Ricardo Montalban's voice*
 
2021-06-20 8:49:03 PM  
1720 Olympic swimming pools
 
2021-06-20 8:54:34 PM  

cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?


[Fark user image 425x566]


No, feet.

Airplane! Rex Kramer Car Scene
Youtube MrktxWUgcyA
 
2021-06-20 8:55:19 PM  

cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?


Based on the photo and language from the article, the author has mistaken "distance from shoreline" for "height", or just figured the largest number in the article should be claimed for height because sensationalism. Buried at the bottom is reference from witnesses estimating the actual height above resting water to be 100ft.
 
2021-06-20 9:06:32 PM  

LoneVVolf: cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?

Based on the photo and language from the article, the author has mistaken "distance from shoreline" for "height", or just figured the largest number in the article should be claimed for height because sensationalism. Buried at the bottom is reference from witnesses estimating the actual height above resting water to be 100ft.



"Initially, the wave - generated by a landslide that itself was generated by a massive earthquake that shook the region for more than a thousand miles up and down the coast - reached a height of more than 1,700 feet. It was still nearly 100 feet high when it reached the mouth of the bay seven miles later. "

yu so  smert tanks fer explaainin
 
2021-06-20 9:13:09 PM  

LoneVVolf: cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?

Based on the photo and language from the article, the author has mistaken "distance from shoreline" for "height", or just figured the largest number in the article should be claimed for height because sensationalism. Buried at the bottom is reference from witnesses estimating the actual height above resting water to be 100ft.


This isn't the one I was thinking of then.
The one I was thinking of left damage up the side of the fjord that they were able to measure.
 
2021-06-20 9:13:42 PM  

bud jones: LoneVVolf: cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?

Based on the photo and language from the article, the author has mistaken "distance from shoreline" for "height", or just figured the largest number in the article should be claimed for height because sensationalism. Buried at the bottom is reference from witnesses estimating the actual height above resting water to be 100ft.


"Initially, the wave - generated by a landslide that itself was generated by a massive earthquake that shook the region for more than a thousand miles up and down the coast - reached a height of more than 1,700 feet. It was still nearly 100 feet high when it reached the mouth of the bay seven miles later. "

yu so  smert tanks fer explaainin


So it was the one I was thinking of.
 
2021-06-20 9:56:26 PM  

NewportBarGuy: FrancoFile: [Fark user image image 275x183]

Dammit.. I'm too slow.

[Fark user image 425x211]


Those are two pretty, pretty men.
 
2021-06-20 10:07:02 PM  
I'm with cretinbob, just because the wave took out trees up to 1720 feet doesn't mean the wave was actually that high.
 
2021-06-20 10:32:03 PM  

LoneVVolf: cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?

Based on the photo and language from the article, the author has mistaken "distance from shoreline" for "height", or just figured the largest number in the article should be claimed for height because sensationalism. Buried at the bottom is reference from witnesses estimating the actual height above resting water to be 100ft.


There's a model simulation in this article that also shows that the wave wasn't 1720 feet high. Water wooshing up ths hill opposite the landslide does not a wave make.
 
2021-06-20 10:58:00 PM  

NewportBarGuy: FrancoFile: [Fark user image image 275x183]

Dammit.. I'm too slow.

[Fark user image 425x211]


Yes, it's a shame the other person beat you to posting the thing that was already mentioned in the headline.
 
2021-06-20 11:10:34 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Found a good retelling of what happened to the 3 trollers that were anchored in the bay when it happened.

http://www.sitnews.us/Kiffer/LituyaBay​/070808_lituya_bay.html

At Yakutat, 80 miles to the north of Lituya, three people out berry picking died instantly when a small island they were on immediately dropped more than two dozen feet under the water. Later measurements determined that a nearby mountain had risen more than 50 feet at the same time.


Alex, I'll take "oh hell no" for $800
 
2021-06-20 11:40:03 PM  

morg: I'm with cretinbob, just because the wave took out trees up to 1720 feet doesn't mean the wave was actually that high.


That's a pretty bold gamble

Yeah, I remember the story from years ago.
 
2021-06-21 1:35:55 AM  

Benjimin_Dover: LoneVVolf: cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?

Based on the photo and language from the article, the author has mistaken "distance from shoreline" for "height", or just figured the largest number in the article should be claimed for height because sensationalism. Buried at the bottom is reference from witnesses estimating the actual height above resting water to be 100ft.

There's a model simulation in this article that also shows that the wave wasn't 1720 feet high. Water wooshing up ths hill opposite the landslide does not a wave make.


Wut? It doesn't? Why not? That's literally what a wave is... "Wooshing'...
 
2021-06-21 1:38:32 AM  

Dewey Fidalgo: Found a good retelling of what happened to the 3 trollers that were anchored in the bay when it happened.

http://www.sitnews.us/Kiffer/LituyaBay​/070808_lituya_bay.html


The 3 Trollers is the name of my fark-themed oompah trio.
 
2021-06-21 2:47:31 AM  
Sorry subby, I would believe that most people would argue that the Vajont dam failure in Italy is the king
One of the Worst Man-Made Disasters in History
Youtube lkGnnc8Ezlk


I mean it "only" involved a measly 9 billion cubic feet of rock falling into the basin. What was the alaska wave again, like 1 billion cubic feet?
 
2021-06-21 3:05:40 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-06-21 3:27:50 AM  
Yeah, you don't measure the height of a wave by how far it runs up on the shore.
 
2021-06-21 4:03:19 AM  
Electricity and energy
There are no U.S. customary units for electric current, potential difference, or charge since these concepts were developed after the international adoption of metric in science. The metric units ampere, volt, ohm and coulomb are the only units used.

lets word a motion that is sly and would get voted in and that would make it that any use of electricity must be in metric when any unit of mesurement is displayed with such unit of electricity. (i'm sure someone is smart enough to write something like that)

in effect making it only legal to use the metric system for information posted on the internet in america as it runs on electricity.

please
 
2021-06-21 4:35:20 AM  

bluewave69: Electricity and energy
There are no U.S. customary units for electric current, potential difference, or charge since these concepts were developed after the international adoption of metric in science. The metric units ampere, volt, ohm and coulomb are the only units used.

lets word a motion that is sly and would get voted in and that would make it that any use of electricity must be in metric when any unit of mesurement is displayed with such unit of electricity. (i'm sure someone is smart enough to write something like that)

in effect making it only legal to use the metric system for information posted on the internet in america as it runs on electricity.

please


bunnywithpankakeonhead.gif
 
2021-06-21 4:52:55 AM  

bluewave69: Electricity and energy
There are no U.S. customary units for electric current, potential difference, or charge since these concepts were developed after the international adoption of metric in science. The metric units ampere, volt, ohm and coulomb are the only units used.

lets word a motion that is sly and would get voted in and that would make it that any use of electricity must be in metric when any unit of mesurement is displayed with such unit of electricity. (i'm sure someone is smart enough to write something like that)

in effect making it only legal to use the metric system for information posted on the internet in america as it runs on electricity.

please


False.  One Pirate-Ninja = 1 kilowatt/hour.
 
2021-06-21 7:45:38 AM  
In 1720, the largest unrecorded wave occurred. It reached an astonishing height of 1,958.
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2021-06-21 7:48:02 AM  
Run-up height, not wave height - an important distinction.
 
2021-06-21 7:57:17 AM  

Drearyx: Benjimin_Dover: LoneVVolf: cretinbob: 1720 what? Rods? Barleycorns? Thousand pounds of bananas?

Based on the photo and language from the article, the author has mistaken "distance from shoreline" for "height", or just figured the largest number in the article should be claimed for height because sensationalism. Buried at the bottom is reference from witnesses estimating the actual height above resting water to be 100ft.

There's a model simulation in this article that also shows that the wave wasn't 1720 feet high. Water wooshing up ths hill opposite the landslide does not a wave make.

Wut? It doesn't? Why not? That's literally what a wave is... "Wooshing'...


Waves do more washing than wooshing. It's how many things end up on shore.
 
2021-06-21 10:40:35 AM  

cretinbob: morg: I'm with cretinbob, just because the wave took out trees up to 1720 feet doesn't mean the wave was actually that high.

That's a pretty bold gamble

Yeah, I remember the story from years ago.


When the wave breaks against the hillside that water is going to continue running up the hill until it runs out of steam.
 
2021-06-21 11:25:10 AM  

morg: cretinbob: morg: I'm with cretinbob, just because the wave took out trees up to 1720 feet doesn't mean the wave was actually that high.

That's a pretty bold gamble

Yeah, I remember the story from years ago.

When the wave breaks against the hillside that water is going to continue running up the hill until it runs out of steam.


Also, when the levee breaks, mama you gotta move.
 
2021-06-21 1:00:25 PM  

lifeslammer: Sorry subby, I would believe that most people would argue that the Vajont dam failure in Italy is the king[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/lkGnnc8E​zlk]

I mean it "only" involved a measly 9 billion cubic feet of rock falling into the basin. What was the alaska wave again, like 1 billion cubic feet?


Glacial Lake Missoula laughs at your silly dam comment.
 
2021-06-21 4:03:33 PM  

wiredroach: lifeslammer: Sorry subby, I would believe that most people would argue that the Vajont dam failure in Italy is the king[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/lkGnnc8E​zlk]

I mean it "only" involved a measly 9 billion cubic feet of rock falling into the basin. What was the alaska wave again, like 1 billion cubic feet?

Glacial Lake Missoula laughs at your silly dam comment.


Sea > lake

and of course theres an xkcd for it. http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkc​d1190​/
 
2021-06-21 4:16:46 PM  

khitsicker: wiredroach: lifeslammer: Sorry subby, I would believe that most people would argue that the Vajont dam failure in Italy is the king[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/lkGnnc8E​zlk]

I mean it "only" involved a measly 9 billion cubic feet of rock falling into the basin. What was the alaska wave again, like 1 billion cubic feet?

Glacial Lake Missoula laughs at your silly dam comment.

Sea > lake

and of course theres an xkcd for it. http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd​1190/


Yep, those were huge.   Thing about the Missoula Floods is that there may well have been humans who witnessed them.  13K years ago was the last one.  There were people in the region by then.
 
2021-06-21 5:05:59 PM  

khitsicker: Sea > lake


True...if it actually happened of course.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.