Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

9.0 Earthquake strikes Japan


Recommended Posts

You might want to do a little more research before saying stuff like this.

http://www.pdc.org/i...ami_history.jsp

Alright fair enough. We'll wait and see what the damage (if any) looks like and if it's there I stand corrected. If it's not, I stand by the fact that it was forecasted correctly and created un-necessary hype. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have a friend who just got a job at the Tsunami Warning Center in Palmer, Alaska--I was thinking of her when I saw this. She hasn't started just yet though. No doubt an event like this will "change" her starting requirements when she arrives as I have to bet they will be investigating and studying this one for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You do know that the models run by the Tsunami Warning Centers are not real-time but are instead statistically related to past events. It is about the best they can do right now given the massive computing needs, etc and the current overall understanding. The warning center warned against an event which had the potential to cause significant damage. Would you take the chance to be a hero and not issue a warning or would you err on the side of caution? I think caution here was a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From MSNBC

Earlier Friday, wave surges hit the islands of Hawaii with one report of a 12-foot wave with a 100-foot surge on the Kona coast of the Big Island, Fryer said. He added that if coastal areas had not been evacuated people would have been killed by the tsunami.

Good thing that Warning was issued!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reports of 137 people dead at least at the moment from Japan with over 300 people still missing...not good...

I hate how the news stations sensationalize the number of deaths.

It's always "BREAKING NEWS: 3 confirmed dead." Then they just keep adding numbers and keep "breaking" the news.

I think it's fairly obvious from these videos that Japan will be lucky if the death toll is not in the thousands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goes to show you how irresponsible some agencies like AP are. They just reported no major damage on breakingnews.com

Yeah thats really poor if thats what some agencies are suggesting, I do wish sometimes they are less hasty with giving the all clear on these sorts of things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate how the news stations sensationalize the number of deaths.

It's always "BREAKING NEWS: 3 confirmed dead." Then they just keep adding numbers and keep "breaking" the news.

I think it's fairly obvious from these videos that Japan will be lucky if the death toll is not in the thousands.

I quite agree with you on that.

Even with all the current reported people dead and say half of those missing turn out to be dead as well then your looking at something in the 300s...and no doubt as you ay the death toll is very sadly going to get higher yet I'd imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which islands? I spoke to someone not to long ago on the southwest coast of Oahu and there was no damage in their immediate area.

I'm not sure but the live report said witnesses said they heard boats crashing into each other and got out just in time

note: when I was typing the above they said water reached into the lobby of some hotel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright fair enough. We'll wait and see what the damage (if any) looks like and if it's there I stand corrected. If it's not, I stand by the fact that it was forecasted correctly and created un-necessary hype. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.

have you ever tried to walk through 6 inches of onrushing water?

seems prudent in these scenarios to err on the side of over-doing the warnings and evacs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure but the live report said witnesses said they heard boats crashing into each other and got out just in time

note: when I was typing the above they said water reached into the lobby of some hotel

6' wave at Kahului

MEASUREMENTS OR REPORTS OF TSUNAMI WAVE ACTIVITY

GAUGE LOCATION LAT LON TIME AMPL PER

------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------- -----

KAPOHO HI 19.5N 154.8W 1408Z 0.06M / 0.2FT 14MIN

HONOLULU OAHU 21.3N 157.9W 1329Z 0.68M / 2.2FT 32MIN

HILO HAWAII 19.7N 155.1W 1357Z 1.32M / 4.3FT 24MIN

KAHULUI MAUI 20.9N 156.5W 1340Z 1.82M / 6.0FT 28MIN

LAHAINA HI 20.9N 156.7W 1335Z 0.50M / 1.6FT 64MIN

MILOLII HI 19.2N 155.9W 1350Z 0.67M / 2.2FT 12MIN

BARBERS PT HI 21.3N 158.1W 1323Z 0.65M / 2.1FT 06MIN

HONUAPO HI 19.1N 155.6W 1340Z 0.04M / 0.1FT 32MIN

HALEIWA HI 21.6N 158.1W 1329Z 1.09M / 3.6FT 38MIN

MAKAPU`U HI 21.3N 157.7W 1312Z 0.49M / 1.6FT 52MIN

KAWAIHAE HAWAII 20.0N 155.8W 1330Z 0.85M / 2.8FT 56MIN

HONOKOHAU HI 19.7N 156.0W 1345Z 0.44M / 1.4FT 10MIN

DART 51407 19.6N 156.5W 1322Z 0.17M / 0.6FT 44MIN

NAWILIWILI KAUAI 22.0N 159.4W 1311Z 0.64M / 2.1FT 26MIN

HANALEI HI 22.2N 159.5W 1306Z 0.85M / 2.8FT 28MIN

TERN FR. FRIGATE US 23.9N 166.3W 1224Z 0.37M / 1.2FT 16MIN

MALAKAL KOROR PW 7.3N 134.5E 1142Z 0.10M / 0.3FT 40MIN

LEGASPI PH 13.1N 123.8E 1049Z 0.26M / 0.8FT 58MIN

DART 46403 52.7N 156.9W 1128Z 0.09M / 0.3FT 60MIN

DART 52402 11.7N 154.2E 0932Z 0.29M / 0.9FT 22MIN

DART 46408 49.6N 169.9W 1030Z 0.14M / 0.5FT 18MIN

DART 21414 48.9N 178.3E 0927Z 0.18M / 0.6FT 24MIN

MIDWAY 28.2N 177.4W 1054Z 1.26M / 4.1FT 12MIN

YAP FM 9.5N 138.1E 0951Z 0.18M / 0.6FT 92MIN

WAKE US 19.3N 166.6E 0928Z 0.38M / 1.2FT 14MIN

SAIPAN US 15.2N 145.7E 0916Z 0.66M / 2.2FT 30MIN

TOSASHIMIZU SHIKOKU 32.8N 133.0E 0751Z 0.93M / 3.0FT 64MIN

OMAEZAKI HONSHU JP 34.6N 138.2E 0660Z 0.99M / 3.2FT 72MIN

DART 21418 38.7N 148.7E 0619Z 1.07M / 3.5FT 06MIN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you ever tried to walk through 6 inches of onrushing water?

seems prudent in these scenarios to err on the side of over-doing the warnings and evacs

Yeah its so easy to sit at home and say oh yes they were right and I was wrong. However them being wrong could result in so many lives being lost and I would rather they be wrong than issue no warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know that the models run by the Tsunami Warning Centers are not real-time but are instead statistically related to past events. It is about the best they can do right now given the massive computing needs, etc and the current overall understanding. The warning center warned against an event which had the potential to cause significant damage. Would you take the chance to be a hero and not issue a warning or would you err on the side of caution? I think caution here was a good idea.

Well said. People saying that the tsunami warnings in Hawaii are "crying wolf" are clueless. The science isn't there to "know" the impact and since the impacts have, historically, been catastrophic in somewhat similar situations, to not issue the warnings would be grossly negligent. Also, some people have been spouting silliness about there never having been big impacts in the past; they need to do a little research or can just read the excerpt, below. Smaller quakes than this one have led to significant numbers of deaths in Hawaii and the West Coast and by the time one would know what the actual impact is, it would be too late to issue warnings and catastrophe would ensue if the impacts were greater than predicted. This isn't the minor impact of predicting 4" of snow and getting 10" of snow.

"The worst big wave to strike the U.S. was a 1946 tsunami caused by a magnitude of 8.1 earthquake near Unimak Islands, Alaska, that killed 165 people, mostly in Hawaii. In 1960, a magnitude 9.5 earthquake in southern Chile caused a tsunami that killed at least 1,716 people, including 61 people in Hilo. It also destroyed most of that city's downtown. On the U.S. mainland, a 1964 tsunami from a 9.2 magnitude earthquake in Prince William Sound, Alaska, struck Washington State, Oregon and California. It killed 128 people, including 11 in Crescent City, Calif."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, you get a 6 foot wave on the beach, when its covered by bathers and tanners. You don't think that warrants some sort of warning?

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...