Jump to content

Strong Earthquake


Recommended Posts

I still don't get the lack of accurate info available to us. I was just watching the news and the guy being interviewed was asked "what info have you received from New Cal. He replied that they didn't communicate with NC, they wait till the receive info from our neighbors we normally communicate with.
Add to that the fact they can't actually say if any kind of wave is coming, some 6hrs after the event, just makes me scratch my head and wonder why the heck we pay them. How many times have we been through this. There are supposedly a heap of Tidal Bouys out there. Why is there not better info available to us. If something large was coming toward NZ, no one is going to know a thing till it's all too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wheels said:

I still don't get the lack of accurate info available to us. I was just watching the news and the guy being interviewed was asked "what info have you received from New Cal. He replied that they didn't communicate with NC, they wait till the receive info from our neighbors we normally communicate with.
Add to that the fact they can't actually say if any kind of wave is coming, some 6hrs after the event, just makes me scratch my head and wonder why the heck we pay them. How many times have we been through this. There are supposedly a heap of Tidal Bouys out there. Why is there not better info available to us. If something large was coming toward NZ, no one is going to know a thing till it's all too late.

A Tsunami warning has been issued. That covers it doesn't it? One single wave doesn't come. Its more like someone shakes a bucket of water and everything slops about for a bit, but on the scale of the whole Pacific. Hence the warning of unpredictable currents and surges, esp around estuaries etc. The day after the Japan quake we we down to the river where we keep the boat. For 10 min, the tide was going out, then for 5 min, it was coming up, then out for a bit, then up for 15 min, then out for a bit more. No dangerous surges at that stage, just everything was jiggled up. There were dangerous surges at other places like Tutukaka. But the key point is it is unpredictable. I'm not sure if its warranted to criticise the accuracy of the predictions. The key point is to issue a warning in a timely manner, which if I'm correct, did not occur after the Kaikorua quake, and led to meaningful system changes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tsunamis are not unpredictable. Far from it. There are enough sensors out there that someone should be able to say exactly if something is coming, what height it is, direction it is traveling and speed. Failing that, the islands in between should be able to give some into that something is coming or not. There was no such warning this morning. There was only a news item at 6AM saying there was a strong earthquake, don't go near the water just in case.
        Look at this from another perspective. Why do we need the agency and the public expense going into keeping them, if all we really need to do is, "I just heard on the News there was a strong Earthquake in the Pacific last night. I better not go down to the Sea just in case".
So what I am trying to say here is, when our Tax dollar goes into providing a service, surely we should be able expect some level of service.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, wheels said:

Tsunamis are not unpredictable. Far from it. 

"Unpredictable" was actively highlighted in everything I read this morning.

NEMA said that some coastal areas could experience strong and unusual currents, and unpredictable surges at the shore. However, it said there was no need to evacuate other areas unless directly advised by local civil defence authorities.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/weather-news/300226889/tsunami-warning-threat-to-nz-passes-after-77-magnitude-earthquake-in-new-caledonia

And from the NEMA tweet, point one is that the first wave isn't necessarily the largest, large waves a likely to occur for several hours etc.

Here is the thing, the quake happened way out in the Pacific, and there was minimal threat to NZ. The major risk is a quake close to the coast, most likely in the Kermadec Trench, that would create a damaging event in populated areas. That is what the warning system is for. If one were to occur, I'd expect NEMA to use that text alert thing that makes your phone sound like a car alarm.

Further, indicating a high level of accuracy can lead to increased risk. Qualitatively saying there is a risk is a far safer way to inform people of a risk. If you state a time that a wave will arrive to within say 10 min, and its wave height to 3 decimal places, it indicates an unrealistic knowledge of what is going on. If there is an earthquake, you need to know if you should not go surfing (as today's example) or rip the kids out of bed and run to the hills. Any other detail is just noise around the primary message, and detracts from what is important.

If anything, I'd be asking about the time taken to issue the initial warning. This one was issued before the wave arrived, but an earthquake in the Kermadec trench would be another proposition entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...