ZCZC
WEPA40 PHEB 010721
TSUPAC
TSUNAMI MESSAGE NUMBER 1
NWS PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER HONOLULU HI
0721 UTC MON JAN 1 2024
PRELIMINARY EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS - FROM JMA
--------------------------------------------
* MAGNITUDE 7.4
* ORIGIN TIME 0710 UTC JAN 1 2024
* COORDINATES 37.5 NORTH 137.2 EAST
* DEPTH 0 KM / 0 MILES
* LOCATION NEAR THE WEST COAST OF HONSHU JAPAN
EVALUATION
----------
TSUNAMI THREAT FORECAST
-----------------------
* HAZARDOUS TSUNAMI WAVES FROM THIS EARTHQUAKE ARE POSSIBLE
WITHIN 300 KM OF THE EPICENTER ALONG THE COASTS OF
JAPAN.
I looked at the tsunami wave early detection system data. Attached the graphs. If anyone has seen a tsunami on the graphs, please leave a comment.
The tsunami theory also does not provide grounds for warning if the depth in the sea, in the area of the epicenter, is less than 3 km.
Experts announced that the earthquake did not generate a tsunami. Then what do we see in photographs from the INTERNET?
There must have been an uncertainly about this earthquake.
To "not to declare a tsunami alert" and then have a tsunami would have been unacceptable and probably lead to a prosecution. Nobody wants that situation again.
Easier to declare a warning, just in case, I would say.
Unfortunately, over the years of operation, the automated tsunami registration and early warning system (DART) has discredited itself and does not inspire confidence among the population. Look at the topic of my discussion: Tsunami waves and problems of early warning.
In the discussion I want to draw attention to three problems.
Problem 1. The photographs show a wave after an earthquake and the destruction from this wave. It is important to note that the wave type does not correspond to a tsunami. What are the opinions of the panelists?
Problem 2: The Tsunami Detection and Early Warning System (DART) is an automated sea level measurement system. This is not an expert assessment of the situation. The system provides sea level information in 15 minutes, one minute and 15 seconds modes. If a level deviation from the ocean tide is detected, then the measurement data is transmitted with a shorter time interval. That is, if the system has not recorded the deviation of sea level from the tide, then it is unacceptable to convey the danger of a tsunami on its behalf. One can only comment: “DART did not detect a tsunami, but we do not trust it and advise us to evacuate.”
What are the opinions of the panelists?
Problem 3. After each strong sea earthquake, one of two types of “alarm” must be introduced.
The first type (DART did not record a tsunami) - “A strong offshore earthquake has been recorded and it is advisable to evacuate the population.”
The second type (DART recorded a tsunami) “an alarm is announced and the time of arrival of the tsunami is indicated.”
What are the opinions of the panelists?
Dear Boris Borys Kapochkin .
Do you have a recording of the M: 7.5 earthquake fom Japan (01.01.2024)
Regards,
Laszlo
https://www.researchgate.net/post/EEWS_does_not_save_peoples_lives
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Nanotechnology
- Nanostructures
- Thin Films