ALhurricane Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 One positive is that the tsunami will be hitting the west coast at low tide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akeem the African Dream Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I sold a property last night that is located on Ko'olina Beach on Oahu. I just called to confirm that everything would be ok for my buyer and the person I spoke to reported no damage in their immediate area. Ko'Olina Beach is about 20 miles west of Oahu on the southwest shore of the island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetjanet998 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 One positive is that the tsunami will be hitting the west coast at low tide. yeah I was just about the ask that... in the live shots you can see beach, were it was recently wet, exposed some...i thought it may have been the ocean going out at first but it is consistent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 not to inject anything from PR into the discussion, but I was glad to see the U.S. Military in the area offer immediate assistance in any way that they were needed. Since the airports were damaged in Japan, the US was allowing all commercial planes to land at our bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALhurricane Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Tide gauge at Charleston, OR just started to shoot up... here we go... http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?stn=9432780%20Charleston,%20OR&type=Tide+Data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Report: Dam breaks in Fukushima prefecture, Japan, washing away scores of homes. Lots of subplots to this event, the nuke plants, damn breaks, aftershocks... (((((Prayers and good vibes to the Japanese.))))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Here is a map from USGS showing all the earthquakes that have occurred in the area off the coast of Japan. Yellow - last week Blue - last day Red - last hour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 any live feeds from the west coast that you can share would be great. CNN Live just has the cameras, but no audio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartyOn Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 any live feeds from the west coast that you can share would be great. CNN Live just has the cameras, but no audio Live from Oregon http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream/4&hpt=T1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetjanet998 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I'm not sure, but I think that's the oil refinary area. a translator on that feed would be nice it looks like an urban area....they panned way out and moved around.. it looked moderatly windy too, the smoke wasnt going straight up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyewall Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The anchor in HI is a FAIL! As for the updates it is much appreciated as I am at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwt Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Alot of quakes there! Several big ones as well there. First waves slamming into the west coast, should see more and more reports in the next hour or two working southwards down the west coast. Hope everyone stays safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerWXman Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Much ado about nothing. My prayers go out to the Japanese people but I really didn't expect 10 foot surges in Hawaii and 6 foot surges in San Fran. I agree with this.. Something needs to change in the criteria or something because the hype was completely ridiculous considering what actually happened. It sounds like they pretty much got what they expected in HI and I'm not sure that should warrant a "tsunami warning." I'm not trying to give any jazz to the forecasters for what they have done over the past 24 hours.. rather suggesting that we re-evaluate the whole tsunami watch/warning criteria system. Also, I think it's completely understandable that the system isn't refined yet because this is still a relatively young area of our science that we're still learning about. But how many times do we have to go through this in HI before we re-evaluate? Has there ever been an instance where an earthquake that far away from HI has caused major problems in HI? And tsunami warnings for the west coast of the US? Really? I understand the "better safe than sorry" attitude but at the same time you can't over-do it to the point of patronizing the public until they don't take you seriously anymore. I think we have gotten close to that lately with TOR/SVR warnings that often don't verify. Obviously it was a good move to change hail criteria to 1" so at least we're making progress there, but I'm telling you I hear all the time from people that don't take these things seriously because they're over-issued. I'm in the broadcast sector and the most important part of our job is making information consumable for the public. I think that's something that NWS has some trouble with in general, but it seems like they've been making strides lately to get better. We need to understand that when people hear "tsunami warning" they instantly think of what happened in 2004 or last night in Japan. There needs to be some kind of lower level advisory with different language.. like the difference between "wind advisory" and "high wind warning." One thing I've learned in this business is that (in general) you shouldn't just assume everyone is completely stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hckyplayer8 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Feel for the people but this is a sweet shot. http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Tsunami-waves-swirl-near-port-Oarai-Ibaraki-Prefecture-state-after/photo//110311/481/urn_publicid_ap_org_f2136cf16155477185bb223ad4077e48//s:/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_earthquake;_ylt=AuLx9ypGSzkyDx8VOUDjGN39xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTFiaDI3YWM2BHBvcwMxMQRzZWMDeW5fcl9qdW1wX3Bob3RvBHNsawN0c3VuYW1pd2F2ZXM- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhotoGuy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Feel for the people but this is a sweet shot. http://news.yahoo.co...3VuYW1pd2F2ZXM- That's an awesome shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacindc Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Has there ever been an instance where an earthquake that far away from HI has caused major problems in HI? You might want to do a little more research before saying stuff like this. http://www.pdc.org/iweb/tsunami_history.jsp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandymanColumbusGA Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 For those wanting to view local media along the west coast... There's a list at this website: http://flnewscenter.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klw Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I agree with this.. But how many times do we have to go through this in HI before we re-evaluate? Has there ever been an instance where an earthquake that far away from HI has caused major problems in HI? And tsunami warnings for the west coast of the US? Really? I understand the "better safe than sorry" attitude but at the same time you can't over-do it to the point of patronizing the public until they don't take you seriously anymore. I think we have gotten close to that lately with TOR/SVR warnings that often don't verify. Obviously it was a good move to change hail criteria to 1" so at least we're making progress there, but I'm telling you I hear all the time from people that don't take these things seriously because they're over-issued. http://www.cbsnews.c...in6250359.shtml 1946, 1964 basin wide tsunamis. 46 killed over 100 in Hilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALhurricane Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I agree with this.. Something needs to change in the criteria or something because the hype was completely ridiculous considering what actually happened. It sounds like they pretty much got what they expected in HI and I'm not sure that should warrant a "tsunami warning." I'm not trying to give any jazz to the forecasters for what they have done over the past 24 hours.. rather suggesting that we re-evaluate the whole tsunami watch/warning criteria system. Also, I think it's completely understandable that the system isn't refined yet because this is still a relatively young area of our science that we're still learning about. But how many times do we have to go through this in HI before we re-evaluate? Has there ever been an instance where an earthquake that far away from HI has caused major problems in HI? And tsunami warnings for the west coast of the US? Really? I understand the "better safe than sorry" attitude but at the same time you can't over-do it to the point of patronizing the public until they don't take you seriously anymore. I think we have gotten close to that lately with TOR/SVR warnings that often don't verify. Obviously it was a good move to change hail criteria to 1" so at least we're making progress there, but I'm telling you I hear all the time from people that don't take these things seriously because they're over-issued. I'm in the broadcast sector and the most important part of our job is making information consumable for the public. I think that's something that NWS has some trouble with in general, but it seems like they've been making strides lately to get better. We need to understand that when people hear "tsunami warning" they instantly think of what happened in 2004 or last night in Japan. There needs to be some kind of lower level advisory with different language.. like the difference between "wind advisory" and "high wind warning." One thing I've learned in this business is that (in general) you shouldn't just assume everyone is completely stupid. I agree with the concern of desensitizing the public to these situations. However, if some of the media (I stress some, as there are wonderful broadcast people out there) would better report what the actual forecast is versus crazy hype, then that would go a long way in 'managing expectations'. We deal with this with storm surge on the Gulf Coast. A lot of people cannot relate to numbers. They simply want to know what those numbers mean to them and how it will impact them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetjanet998 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I agree with this.. Something needs to change in the criteria or something because the hype was completely ridiculous considering what actually happened. It sounds like they pretty much got what they expected in HI and I'm not sure that should warrant a "tsunami warning." I'm not trying to give any jazz to the forecasters for what they have done over the past 24 hours.. rather suggesting that we re-evaluate the whole tsunami watch/warning criteria system. Also, I think it's completely understandable that the system isn't refined yet because this is still a relatively young area of our science that we're still learning about. But how many times do we have to go through this in HI before we re-evaluate? Has there ever been an instance where an earthquake that far away from HI has caused major problems in HI? And tsunami warnings for the west coast of the US? Really? I understand the "better safe than sorry" attitude but at the same time you can't over-do it to the point of patronizing the public until they don't take you seriously anymore. I think we have gotten close to that lately with TOR/SVR warnings that often don't verify. Obviously it was a good move to change hail criteria to 1" so at least we're making progress there, but I'm telling you I hear all the time from people that don't take these things seriously because they're over-issued. I'm in the broadcast sector and the most important part of our job is making information consumable for the public. I think that's something that NWS has some trouble with in general, but it seems like they've been making strides lately to get better. We need to understand that when people hear "tsunami warning" they instantly think of what happened in 2004 or last night in Japan. There needs to be some kind of lower level advisory with different language.. like the difference between "wind advisory" and "high wind warning." One thing I've learned in this business is that (in general) you shouldn't just assume everyone is completely stupid. I'm not sure what you can do since the areas that would be affected most(like Japan in this case) by huge waves, there wouldn't be enough time to issue a warning anyway. it's 1am in HI and what we were seeing on the live shots was one little area and not on the NW shores from another forum major coastal damages all along Kona coast with first light we’ll know more surges continuing , some roads closed lots of debris on coastal roads , many ocean side homes and properties will be greatly affected . 100 ft inland penetrations in some places and waves heights to 12 ft. <BR clear=all> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capecod04 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Since the surge heights were "spot on", then why issue warnings, advisories would have been sufficient. The more we desensitize the public, the worse it'll be when our great quake comes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALhurricane Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I'm not sure what you can do since the areas that would be affected most(like Japan in this case) by huge waves, there wouldn't be enough time to issue a warning anyway. it's 1am in HI and what we were seeing on the live shots was one little area and not on the NW shores from another forum major coastal damages all along Kona coast with first light we’ll know more surges continuing , some roads closed lots of debris on coastal roads , many ocean side homes and properties will be greatly affected . 100 ft inland penetrations in some places and waves heights to 12 ft. <BR clear=all> As with so many disasters, the first reports of 'not much happening' turn out to be wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowlover11 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 look at this idiot on the beach http://www.cnn.com/v...stream/4&hpt=T1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 For those wanting to view local media along the west coast... There's a list at this website: http://flnewscenter.com/ awesome. thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacindc Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 As with so many disasters, the first reports of 'not much happening' turn out to be wishful thinking. Some day people will learn this. You know, because where the bad stuff happens, power is out or infrastructure is damaged or people are too busy reacting to bad stuff happening to race to Twitter. You'd think the media in particular would have learned from the Katrina "New Orleans dodged a bullet" statements. It takes time for reports to come in, and the first ones come in from the places least affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dsnowx53 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I remember the initial "looks like NO was spared" from Katrina reports... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaggy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 good video of the tsunami waves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerWXman Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 However, if some of the media (I stress some, as there are wonderful broadcast people out there) would better report what the actual forecast is versus crazy hype, then that would go a long way in 'managing expectations'. We deal with this with storm surge on the Gulf Coast. A lot of people cannot relate to numbers. They simply want to know what those numbers mean to them and how it will impact them. BINGO! Very well said Same deal with the rivers around here... There are a ton of over-hypers out there and to be fair, a lot of places that management has their nose so deep in it that they're almost telling mets what to say (always over-hype) but for me, if it's my face on a forecast, you're gonna get what I think is going to happen whether management likes it or not and whether it worries people or puts them at ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwt Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 As with so many disasters, the first reports of 'not much happening' turn out to be wishful thinking. Yep so true, often it takes a while for the true damage to filter through in a big disaster. Just gotta hope the fact Japan is well prepared for this and there has been some decent warning time will prevent too great a loss of life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Since the surge heights were "spot on", then why issue warnings, advisories would have been sufficient. The more we desensitize the public, the worse it'll be when our great quake comes The issue is that wave heights are often not spot on, because every earthquake is different. This one for instance seems to have directed its energy just south of the Hawaiian Islands. And advisories, while in this case with an overnight tsunami, may have been sufficient. A daytime, nice weather day would send a message of less dangerous than a warning. When the draw down and run up you saw creates chaotic currents that even locals wouldn't anticipate. Many deaths can occur from underestimating the power of even a small rise in water. To me an advisory would still have to mean stay out of the water anyway, period. So why not stick with a warning, because they evacuate based on forecast wave heights not the warning itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.