Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tsunami Warning for Northern California

tsunami.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 177 posts

Re: Tsunami Warning for Northern California

#141

Post by rootusrootus »

cossatot wrote: post #134
throw83838 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has good SnR generally, but I would default to trusting their automated system more than Random Internet Guy. Even if the warning gets canceled after measurements become available.

I'm a Random Internet Guy who is a professional in the field (earthquake hazards, not tsunamis in particular).

You definitely sound like it. But man, I've met some convincing liars online so I try to be cautious when someone makes claims and I have no proof that they are who they claim to be (especially when they didn't make that claim explicitly, and just sound very intelligent).

It's a complication that will never happen, but sometimes I think it would be cool if HN had a way of authenticating experts and giving them flair. So many legit smart people here.

Re: Tsunami Warning for Northern California

#142

Post by powersnail »

gamblor956 wrote: post #137
mort96 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't sound like the iPhone was behind, but rather warning about something else? It's interesting that Android didn't warn about the tsunami at all, even though that sounds more important than the barely noticable tremors you describe.

Why would the Android give a notification for a tsunami that never happened? Androids also give tsunami warnings, when appropriate. There was 1 issued just a few weeks ago after an off-shore earthquake in SoCal.

My Android did give me a tsunami warning this morning though, but no earthquake warning.

Re: Tsunami Warning for Northern California

#143

Post by dataviz1000 »

cossatot wrote: post #68

Based on the location and focal mechanism of the earthquake ( https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nc75095651... ), this is a strike-slip earthquake on the plate boundary between the Pacific and Gorda/Juan de Fuca plates. Strike-slip earthquakes occur when two plates slide beside each other during an earthquake, usually along a steeply-dipping if not vertical fault. These kinds of earthquakes almost neve…

I've been subscribing to tsunami warning system emails since the mid or late 2000s. They send the first email about the earthquake as a warning that something happened. Then after ,if a tsunami isn't detected they send an email saying that. If there is a tsunami they will send the first warning and as soon as sensors and satellites start to track the wave they will update at intervals with a table of expected arrival times and magnitude or height. So, yes, they send a warning that something happened, then they send information if there is a threat.

Here is an example of the first message sent 9 minutes after 2011 Tōhoku earthquake https://imgur.com/a/1mwAKqc.

Re: Tsunami Warning for Northern California

#145

Post by some-guy »

genter wrote: post #92
some-guy wrote: post #48

Not how many other HNners live in Humboldt County, but that was certainly the most intense earthquake I've ever felt. Thankfully we are inland with modern(ish) construction.

Really? I thought the one 2 years ago hit harder. This one was longer, though.

To be fair I’m a recent transplant from the Bay Area.

Re: Tsunami Warning for Northern California

#146

Post by bagels »

toast0 wrote: post #127
bagels wrote: post #88

They should really name these like storms/tornados: "warning" means there is actually a tsunami, "watch" means there might be a tsunami. The map showed the warning extending to >1000ft elevation. That is a little over the top.

The ever present taco distinction. https://www.stevenscountywa.gov/pview.aspx?id=21417&catid=0

I had not seen it applied to tacos before, but it's the perfect metaphor.

Re: Tsunami Warning for Northern California

#147

Post by plorkyeran »

saltcured wrote: post #37
mrnaught wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google maps has this neat map : https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4392216,-123.0674806,6z/data...

The boundaries on this look very odd to me. I wonder what kind of model and terrain resolution they use for this forecast. It seems very odd how some quite low lying shore areas in the SF Bay are excluded while other areas are painted over very high elevations including the SF peninsula and Oakland/Berkeley hills.

For the East Bay it looks like they drew a very rough outline of the contour of the hills and then pushed it an extra half mile or so inland, which results in some clearly safe spots landing inside the line.

Re: Tsunami Warning for Northern California

#149

Post by gosub100 »

rz2k wrote: post #106
cossatot wrote: post #68

Based on the location and focal mechanism of the earthquake ( https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/nc75095651... ), this is a strike-slip earthquake on the plate boundary between the Pacific and Gorda/Juan de Fuca plates. Strike-slip earthquakes occur when two plates slide beside each other during an earthquake, usually along a steeply-dipping if not vertical fault. These kinds of earthquakes almost neve…

Doesn't any earthquake, regardless of fault type increase the immediate risk of a submarine landslide? There are many steep canyons on the Pacific coast, and here is just one example of mass casualties from a tsunami resulting from a submarine landslide triggered by a strike-slip fault earthquake: Caltech, 2018[1]: "Contrary to Previous Belief, Strike-Slip Faults Can Generate Large Tsunamis" [1] https://www.caltech.e…

Those can even happen in bodies of fresh water. There's evidence of one at Lake Tahoe discovered by robot submersibles.

Re: Tsunami Warning for Northern California

#150

Post by dylan604 »

toast0 wrote: post #123
dylan604 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a three-letter acronym with an ampersand in the middle wasn't the official name switched to no longer use that ampersand so it is just the three letters now (and for some time)?

I believe they did announce that, and also claim that the letters no longer mean anything (which makes sense as telegraph is long dead, and the telephone network is primarily spam), however their website including investor relations has the ampersand everywhere, so maybe they backpedaled. Or maybe ampersand was dropped before SBC bought the remaining parts of the old business and reformed T-1000 with the ampersand?

I thought that was when they dropped the ampersand when the biggest baby bell bought the remain baby bells to reform the mothership but couldn't use the ampersand since that was the entity that got broken up in the first place. You can't be too obvious about it and flaunt it in everyone's face. Subtlety is an art. And that art is clearly lost on the FTC
Post reply on HN