Mgee

Exactly. It's not about the height of the wall hitting you, it's about the force behind it. A one metre high wave can be destructive if the whole force of the Pacific is behind it. Tsunamis can also travel incredibly fast -their speed can be up to several hundred kilometers per hour, so there really isn't time for run to safety from the beach.

The critique towards "unnecessary" tsunami warnings expressed by some people in the media is incredibly stupid. It's down to luck from what angle the tsunami hits the land masses, and thus how destructive it is. Forecasting tsunamis is very difficult, because a lot of things like underwater topography affect the wave and how it behaves, thus it's far better to issue an "unnecessary" warning than to play down the potential threat. If the brown stuff had hit the fan, I'm sure that these people, had they survived, would have moaned about how the warnings weren't effective enough. In reality, all the officials can do is to give the warnings and instructions -they can't go and drag 4,3 million people to safety. It's up to the people themselves to either obey or choose to ignore the warnings.

chocolate cake

I'm confident the unusually quick waves I experienced briefly in the kayak on sunday were not normal tidal waves. They were not high waves, but noticeably quicker, and I am sure the slight effect of the tsunami.

lapsed kiwi

That certainly doesn't sound like tidal effects. There was quite a surge in Tutukaka harbour from the Tsunami apparently - as there was in the last one in Dec(?). I think the shape of harbour can cause a funnel effect sometimes.

Quite a good video of a small but definite Tsunami wave arriving in Christchurch estuary here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zG_ARyrEKM