Tsunami Watch for Hawaii!!

David · #1 05-03-2006, 11:26 AM

Hawaiian ledgies, monitor your radio & TV news stations!

A tsunami watch has been issued for the state of Hawaii, effective 5:43 AM HST (Pacific Tsunami Warning Center).

An earthquake occurred at 5:27 AM HST near the Tonga Islands. Preliminary moment magnitude is 8.1.

PWTC Evaluation:

BASED ON ALL AVAILABLE DATA A TSUNAMI MAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY THIS EARTHQUAKE THAT COULD BE DESTRUCTIVE ON COASTAL AREAS EVEN FAR FROM THE EPICENTER. AN INVESTIGATION IS UNDER WAY TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS A TSUNAMI THREAT TO HAWAII.

IF TSUNAMI WAVES IMPACT HAWAII THE ESTIMATED EARLIEST ARRIVAL OF THE FIRST TSUNAMI WAVE IS:

1200 MIDNIGHT HST

Bulletins will be issued hourly or sooner, as conditions warrant.

NEW BULLETIN:
Watch for NEW ZEALAND & FIJI.

DavidMn · #2 05-03-2006, 11:57 AM

8.1 huh. That's not too far from what the '04 earthquake/Tsunami was wasnt it?

David · #3 05-03-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMn

8.1 huh. That's not too far from what the '04 earthquake/Tsunami was wasnt it?

No, dave, it's VERY far. The '04 quake was a 9.1.

That's a whole other order of business.

DavidMn · #4 05-03-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

No, dave, it's VERY far. The '04 quake was a 9.1.

That's a whole other order of business.

My apologies. I know a point in the richter scale is a very signifigant amount.

David · #5 05-03-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMn

My apologies. I know a point in the richter scale is a very signifigant amount.

It's not the Richter scale, dave.

DavidMn · #6 05-03-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

It's not the Richter scale, dave.

I'm sorry. I thought that's what they measured earthquakes by. Is this because it's in the ocean?

chiliD · #7 05-03-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

It's not the Richter scale, dave.

Gutenberg or Rayleigh?

Villavic · #8 05-03-2006, 12:34 PM

I'm lost!
I knew Rithcer was for iintensity of movement, Mercalli scale was about the damage level. What other scales are?

DavidMn · #9 05-03-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Villavic

I'm lost!
I knew Rithcer was for iintensity of movement, Mercalli scale was about the damage level. What other scales are?

Ok, now I'm getting way off here, but being in South America, are you familiar with the Earthquake that hit Chile back in 1960. If I'm not mistaken that's the largest earthquake ever recorded.

David · #10 05-03-2006, 12:54 PM

Seismologists don't use Richter any more because it saturates at high values & because it was originally calibrated to crustal conditions only in Southern California (which made it less accurate for other parts of the world).

Various other magnitudes are computed nowadays, including moment, body-wave & surface-wave. Moment magnitude is what is generally reported by the USGS.

DavidMn · #11 05-03-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Seismologists don't use Richter any more because it saturates at high values & because it was originally calibrated to crustal conditions only in Southern California (which made it less accurate for other parts of the world).

Various other magnitudes are computed nowadays, including moment, body-wave & surface-wave. Moment magnitude is what is generally reported by the USGS.

I see. thank you for enlightening me.

chiliD · #12 05-03-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMn

...the Earthquake that hit Chile back in 1960. If I'm not mistaken that's the largest earthquake ever recorded.

With the re-evaluations of earthquakes, yeah, the Chile quake is the highest on record. Originally, the Anchorage quake in 1964 was listed as an 11.7...but over the years has been downgraded to a 9.2.

DavidMn · #13 05-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

With the re-evaluations of earthquakes, yeah, the Chile quake is the highest on record. Originally, the Anchorage quake in 1964 was listed as an 11.7...but over the years has been downgraded to a 9.2.

Dude, I'm just glad I live in Minnesota!

At least here we dont have to worry about that. (I HOPE)

David · #14 05-03-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

Originally, the Anchorage quake in 1964 was listed as an 11.7...but over the years has been downgraded to a 9.2.

steve!!! where on earth did you hear THAT??!

there's no such thing as an 11.7---the fault that ruptures would have to be like 50,000 miles in length!! there is no such fault----the planet isn't big enough!

but you guys are right about chile being the biggest on record & anchorage being the biggest in the U.S. on record. both quakes were subduction zone events & both generated massive tsunamis that even hit southern CA beaches!

edit: oh I forgot to add, this morning's Tonga quake did generate a tsunami, which was measured so far in Pago Pago & Niue, roughly 45 centimeters in each location.

tuigirl · #15 05-03-2006, 02:41 PM

8.1..wow thats quite big! I'm not surprised by that though as I've been watching the earthquake data in NZ on a daily basis via the net and they are literally having them there every day ( mostly measuring between 3 and 5 on the scale). Theyr'e saying that the Tonga one was at a depth of 38 kms.