janetjanet998 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Is that fire from the 8.9 (or 9.1) quake?? yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 yes holy **** that's terrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I would really like to know what the hell some people were doing so close to the Ocean. It's not like they haven't known for hours on end that it was coming.. a majority of the human population lack common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Just unreal images still coming out of japan...My prayers are with those folks. Take a look at these amazing images looks like something from the movie 2012. HERE Buildings shaking!! The buildings are designed to do that. By swaying with the earth movement like that they have less stress on them than if they were rigid. People and things inside get shook up but it's far less damaging or injurious than have the whole building collapse like the Juarez Hospital in Mexico City in 1985. BTW many of the high rises in SFO and L.A. are designed the same way. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Is that fire from the 8.9 (or 9.1) quake?? yes, the fires were after the big quake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I think Analog just lost his weenie of the year status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Which I also addressed a few posts later stating that I was mistaken... no reason to be an ass about it, but if it makes you feel good/important, that's fine. Thought I'd just bring up the idea that we could possibly evaluate the warning process as it continues to evolve. But apparently that's not up for discussion around here. My fault, I should have known.. obviously go for the status quo.. always err on the side of caution, even if it means a lot of crying wolf situations (which I guarantee will cost lives after a while). No reason to try and improve the process... when in doubt, WARN WARN WARN! I make one post on the subject, and am called "silly, pointless, invalid etc...." not a very welcoming community for a serious discussion.. I'm getting quite the elitist vibe. My only point was that "TSUNAMI WARNING" sounds like something absolutely catastrophic is going to happen. This was clearly not the case in HI or the US. A few canoes getting knocked around and some high water ashore could be covered with different wording in my opinion. I guess being a professional meteorologist isn't enough credentials to have a reasonable opinion on something.. how dare I, a "random poster" question the "seismologists and tectonics experts who issue these warnings?" Because they did a good job with their forecasts.. they were close to verifying in most spots and not catastrophic anywhere in the US including HI. Well I guess the question is...isn't 3 to 8 ft surge from a tsunami enough to justify a tsunami warning? There will be significant inundation...not to the level of Japan, obviously. None of the forecasts were above 8 ft for the west coast, so it was well forecasted. Tsunami science remains in a relative infancy....why take the chance an issue a lesser tsunami advisory for a 3 ft tsunami and then have a "surprise" 10 ft wave and have more people killed? We have flood warnings for rivers when it just gets a hair above flood stage..which means only a few areas on the river will receive flooding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Probably been posted before but BBC has a good Live Blog they are keeping up to date here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 They just reported a bit ago that 'power supply cars' have been flown in to the nuclear power plant that is suffering from pressure buildup and they are about to connect them to provide emergency electricity to the plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 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? A 6 foot breaking wave is a hell of a lot different than a 6 foot SURGING wave as anyone who's been in a 6 foot storm surge can tell you. The video from Japan shows a 13 foot tsunami yet the runup was 2-3 miles inland-BTW two of the worse tsunamis in Japan are the Great Meji Tsunami of 1896 (30 m high) and the Great Showa tsunami of 1933. Both hit the same area of SW Honshu and were produced my earthquakes of lesser magntiude than the current but hit an area with many embayments. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The buildings are designed to do that. By swaying with the earth movement like that they have less stress on them than if they were rigid. People and things inside get shook up but it's far less damaging or injurious than have the whole building collapse like the Juarez Hospital in Mexico City in 1985. BTW many of the high rises in SFO and L.A. are designed the same way. Steve Steve, I believe the hurricane resistant structures in south Florida are designed the same way. Swaying dampens and safely conducts the energy away. http://books.google.com/books?id=mHofQq9M2g4C&pg=PA802&lpg=PA802&dq=hurricane+resistant+buildings+in+florida+sway&source=bl&ots=XBiesnWMom&sig=hE1p51pMn1vMjsPmjuG8EQ0yKvY&hl=en&ei=hYN6TbGFFobGlQfx1pHPBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Tsunami Warning - a tsunami warning is issued when a potential tsunami with significant widespread inundation is imminent or expected. Warnings alert the public that widespread, dangerous coastal flooding accompanied by powerful currents is possible and may continue for several hours after arrival of the initial wave. Warnings also alert emergency management officials to take action for the entire tsunami hazard zone. Appropriate actions to be taken by local officials may include the evacuation of low-lying coastal areas, and the repositioning of ships to deep waters when there is time to safely do so. Warnings may be updated, adjusted geographically, downgraded, or canceled. To provide the earliest possible alert, initial warnings are normally based only on seismic information. For an example of the National Weather Service (NWS) format tsunami warning CLICK HERE. For a warning cancellation,CLICK HERE. Tsunami Advisory - a tsunami advisory is issued due to the threat of a potential tsunami which may produce strong currents or waves dangerous to those in or near the water. Coastal regions historically prone to damage due to strong currents induced by tsunamis are at the greatest risk. The threat may continue for several hours after the arrival of the initial wave, but significant widespread inundation is not expected for areas under an advisory. Appropriate actions to be taken by local officials may include closing beaches, evacuating harbors and marinas, and the repositioning of ships to deep waters when there is time to safely do so. Advisories are normally updated to continue the advisory, expand/contract affected areas, upgrade to a warning, or cancel the advisory. For an example of the NWS format tsunami advisory CLICK HERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The sun is just beginning to rise now out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerWXman Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 that fact that you think "tsumani warning" means "something absolutely catastrophic is going to happen" is irrelevant and indicative only of your inability or refusal to understand what it really means. the people who live in tsunami prone areas know what it means and take the appropriate precautions. someone in Crescent City, CA, despite the warning, lost his life because he decided it didn't mean anything and evidently went down to stand near the water to watch it come in. also? Hawaii is in the US. Not sure what prompted the geography lesson at the end but I appreciate it anyways! And although I feel for the family of the person who lost his life, if he was aware of a tsunami warning and decided to watch it in... some people will always be too dumb to reach. That's part of the sad reality of forecasting weather for the public. Is it really that crazy of an idea to try and make some sort of distinction in warnings between what happened in Japan and what happened in HI? With all due respect, "wxtrix" I don't think you've had to deal with the frustration of people who don't heed warnings. It's easy to sit on a high horse on an internet forum and say " better safe than sorry, issue the warning" but the reality is that if you do this enough, more people will end up hurt in the end* *(in my opinion, open for discussion) see how a discussion board works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Which I also addressed a few posts later stating that I was mistaken... no reason to be an ass about it, but if it makes you feel good/important, that's fine. Thought I'd just bring up the idea that we could possibly evaluate the warning process as it continues to evolve. But apparently that's not up for discussion around here. My fault, I should have known.. obviously go for the status quo.. always err on the side of caution, even if it means a lot of crying wolf situations (which I guarantee will cost lives after a while). No reason to try and improve the process... when in doubt, WARN WARN WARN! I make one post on the subject, and am called "silly, pointless, invalid etc...." not a very welcoming community for a serious discussion.. I'm getting quite the elitist vibe. My only point was that "TSUNAMI WARNING" sounds like something absolutely catastrophic is going to happen. This was clearly not the case in HI or the US. A few canoes getting knocked around and some high water ashore could be covered with different wording in my opinion. I guess being a professional meteorologist isn't enough credentials to have a reasonable opinion on something.. how dare I, a "random poster" question the "seismologists and tectonics experts who issue these warnings?" Because they did a good job with their forecasts.. they were close to verifying in most spots and not catastrophic anywhere in the US including HI. There is no elitism here bud. You tried to compare this to SPC/NWS hail criteria and TOR/SVR weather warnings--there is no comparison. Make proper comparisons and make sure you have the facts straight (or at least somewhat close) before you go ahead and start bashing. It makes you look really bad. "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. " What would you do? I can't say it enough--very high impact events MUST have some extra level of caution. Could you imagine the devestating impacts of thousands of humans losing their lives because no warnings or advisories were issued? Given the current technology and understanding--caution is highly advisable--especially considering these events are rare enough and potentially dangerous enough (yes--everyone does remember the 2004 event and the 200,000+ people who died) that "crying wolf" is better than doing nothing--or not giving explicitly clear wording on the potential impact. "My fault, I should have known.. obviously go for the status quo.. always err on the side of caution, even if it means a lot of crying wolf situations (which I guarantee will cost lives after a while). No reason to try and improve the process... when in doubt, WARN WARN WARN!?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 A 6 foot breaking wave is a hell of a lot different than a 6 foot SURGING wave as anyone who's been in a 6 foot storm surge can tell you. The video from Japan shows a 13 foot tsunami yet the runup was 2-3 miles inland-BTW two of the worse tsunamis in Japan are the Great Meji Tsunami of 1896 (30 m high) and the Great Showa tsunami of 1933. Both hit the same area of SW Honshu and were produced my earthquakes of lesser magntiude than the current but hit an area with many embayments. Steve Would a 6 foot tsunami surge be considered equivalent to a Cat 2 hurricane storm surge, Steve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Geez can't we just get news and info here without lectures, silly statements, reasons for warnings, lots of wasted space. How's the nuke plant doing? Do not post unless you have new links, info , pics. Make a new thread for the why warnings etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerWXman Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Geez can't we just get news and info here without lectures, silly statements, reasons for warnings, lots of wasted space. How's the nuke plant doing? Do not post unless you have new links, info , pics. Make a new thread for the why warnings etc. Probably not a bad idea... thought this one was for all related discussion. From here on out, I'll only post new links info, pics ITT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moneyman Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 2030: The US Coast Guard helicopters are searching for a man who was swept out to sea by powerful waves generated by the tsunami in Northern California, the Associated Press reports. Officials say the man was taking photos of the tsunami with two friends near the mouth of the Klamath river in Del Norte County. The two friends were able to get back to shore. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Hopefully since that person had gotten up on the hill, most of the area had gotten the word to evacuate as well. Hopefully. That's unreal. This also might be a good time to remind people about that big-ass Cascadian Subduction Zone off the Oregon coast. In case anyone thinks tsunamis only hit the west coast after traveling thousands of miles. The last big shock on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was in 1700 (estimate 9.0) and aside from what would today be a devastating tsunami in WA/OR it also caused a signifcant damaging tsunami in Japan (this one in reverse)-so much for questions about the travel distances of tsunamis. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Here's the propagation animation: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Geez can't we just get news and info here without lectures, silly statements, reasons for warnings, lots of wasted space. How's the nuke plant doing? Do not post unless you have new links, info , pics. Make a new thread for the why warnings etc. If I want news, I'll go to a news site. A message board is for discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerWXman Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-12717863 This event has produced some of the most unreal video I've ever seen... very tough to stop thinking about this stuff today. I wonder what happened to the guy shooting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Good Lord, CNN has reanimated Gen. Honore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needbiggerboat Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 the news coverage on the event is nothing short of amazing. Watching CNN/Fox news for info has been entertaining. (I have two tvs in my office) it shows how much the media doesn't know. agree for the most part....someone should give chad myers a few xanax and a bottle of preseco on the other hand, growing up i had to get up off the couch to change the channel (to one of the other 3 available channels)....now, i sit at my desk watching people on the other side of world being swept to their deaths by a natural disaster, live and in color, while tracking usgs analysis on the net in real time.... horrifying and amazing at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The last big shock on the Cascadia Subduction Zone was in 1700 (estimate 9.0) and aside from what would today be a devastating tsunami in WA/OR it also caused a signifcant damaging tsunami in Japan (this one in reverse)-so much for questions about the travel distances of tsunamis. Steve Yup, we were talking about this last night..... looks like a megaquake happens in that region every 500 years on average. http://en.wikipedia....adia_earthquake estimated mag 8.7-9.2 The 1700 Cascadia earthquake was a magnitude 8.7 to 9.2 megathrust earthquake that occurred in the Cascadia subduction zone in 1700.[1] The earthquake involved the Juan de Fuca Plate underlying the Pacific Ocean, from mid-Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada, south along the Pacific Northwest coast as far as northern California, USA. The length of the fault rupture was about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) with an average slip of 20 meters (22 yards). The earthquake caused a tsunami that struck the coast of Japan,[2] and may also be linked to the Bonneville slide. Interesting interval of recurrence: Great Earthquake Summaryest. year interval (years) 1700 AD - 1310 AD 390 810 AD 500 400 AD 410 170 BC 570 600 BC 430 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 This event has produced some of the most unreal video I've ever seen... very tough to stop thinking about this stuff today. I wonder what happened to the guy shooting this. Some real power displayed there. Most people that die in a tsunami are beaten and crushed to death by debris. In effect they don't have time to drown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 yea seriously this is a discussion board. and the topic is the quake. so wth, we should discuss any and everything related. not just put up pics, vids, and news. we have cnn and msnbc for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 My brother is in the Navy and stationed in Yokosuka. He said where he was he felt two separate large quakes and at least three big aftershocks. He also said most of the Japanese people he has talked to said it was the strongest and longest-lasting quake they remember experiencing in their region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerWXman Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Some real power displayed there. Most people that die in a tsunami are beaten and crushed to death by debris. In effect they don't have time to drown. Yeah it's one thing seeing it from the aerial view... but from the angle in this video it hits home... just crazy stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Which I also addressed a few posts later stating that I was mistaken... no reason to be an ass about it, but if it makes you feel good/important, that's fine. Thought I'd just bring up the idea that we could possibly evaluate the warning process as it continues to evolve. But apparently that's not up for discussion around here. My fault, I should have known.. obviously go for the status quo.. always err on the side of caution, even if it means a lot of crying wolf situations (which I guarantee will cost lives after a while). No reason to try and improve the process... when in doubt, WARN WARN WARN! I make one post on the subject, and am called "silly, pointless, invalid etc...." not a very welcoming community for a serious discussion.. I'm getting quite the elitist vibe. My only point was that "TSUNAMI WARNING" sounds like something absolutely catastrophic is going to happen. This was clearly not the case in HI or the US. A few canoes getting knocked around and some high water ashore could be covered with different wording in my opinion. I guess being a professional meteorologist isn't enough credentials to have a reasonable opinion on something.. how dare I, a "random poster" question the "seismologists and tectonics experts who issue these warnings?" Because they did a good job with their forecasts.. they were close to verifying in most spots and not catastrophic anywhere in the US including HI. Knowing you from another forum and being on here for a year or so when it was eastern wx forum. I would have to say you should probably put your tail between your legs here, you are only digging yourself a hole. There are several members on here that are petroleum engineers, geologists and I'm sure maybe a semiologist or two. The point is, just because they don't have a red tag doesn't mean they do not have degrees in other fields and have knowledge far beyond that of a meteorologist when it comes to the earth sciences. With that said, have you ever been around the ocean for a long period of time? If you have, you would know that even 6 ft. waves are extremely strong and can toss you around like a rag doll and unsuspecting beach goers could easily be swept out to sea and drown. So your Tsunami advisory for a "small" wave can easily turn into 4 or 5 people drowning since they had an "advisory" and didn't listen to the advisory and leave the beach and I would consider that lose of life catastrophic Anyways, welcome to the board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.