How big was the tsunami from the recent Japan earthquake?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StevieTNZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earthquake Japan
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
23 replies · 4K views
Earth sciences news on Phys.org

Discussion

... half a dozen news channels in three languages and all they got is a news ticker line ...
 
A tsunami advisory was issued for Fukushima, but the Pacific Tsunami Warning center has, at this point, not issued any alerts for the west coast of North America or Alaska
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CapnGranite said:
A tsunami advisory was issued for Fukushima, but the Pacific Tsunami Warning center has, at this point, not issues any alerts for the west coast of North America or Alaska
With us:
Possible tsunami threat to NZ after magnitude 7.3 quake strikes near Japan.
 
correction: 12 news channels in 4 languages and out of all the Japanese channel is the only one broadcasting it ...
Does the 20 km refer to depth or "off the coast line" - I can't read Japanese - they all report 7.3

NHK: Tsunami (JP) underway, already observed
 
Last edited:
fresh_42 said:
Does the 20 km refer to depth

most likely
 
must be reasonably deep, very little surface waves
 
The best part is that one can watch it guilt-free, for the Japanese can certainly deal with 3 m.
 
fresh_42 said:
Meanwhile I think it's both, since on one chart they had it twice.

a google Earth on the epicentre puts it at about 33km offshr , it's going to be give or take a bit

161121 UT M6.9 offshr Fukushima, Japan zhi.gif
 
Local broadcast is still at M7.3. Observed heights until now between 30 cm and 90 cm.
... and of course the usual say from officials like Tesco: There will be no threads to the population at any time and all is under control.
(... although they've said something like the cooling system has stopped operating not without to mention that the water tanks are full.)
 
fresh_42 said:
Local broadcast is still at M7.3.
the media always take a long time to get things right

StevieTNZ said:
Now at 6.9.

see post 4 an hour ago ;)D
 
davenn said:
the media always take a long time to get things right
... plus a 7+x sells better than a 6+x.
 
davenn said:
hahaha uh huh
By the way: they have corrected their notation now!
M7.4!
At least they have their cooling system running again. Max height experienced: 1.4 m.
 
Last edited:
interesting .. the USGS are still sitting on 6.9
wouldn't be the first time I have seen them under rate a quake
 
davenn said:
interesting .. the USGS are still sitting on 6.9
wouldn't be the first time I have seen them under rate a quake
What I don't understand about it is, that the Richter-scale is based on local (in a radius of a few 100 km) measurements (at least what's written on Wiki), so shouldn't the Japanese measurements be more accurate? The more they certainly have enough experiences. I would expect an eventual difference of about ##\pm 0.15## due to uncertainties of measurements. On the other hand the recent NZ quake which has been more difficult to measure resulted in equal reports around the globe. Btw. the GFZ in Potsdam has 6.9 (http://geofon.gfz-potsdam.de/eqinfo/seismon/globmon.php)
 
fresh_42 said:
What I don't understand about it is, that the Richter-scale is based on local (in a radius of a few 100 km) measurements (at least what's written on Wiki), so shouldn't the Japanese measurements be more accurate? The more they certainly have enough experiences. I would expect an eventual difference of about ##\pm 0.15## due to uncertainties of measurements. On the other hand the recent NZ quake which has been more difficult to measure resulted in equal reports around the globe. Btw. the GFZ in Potsdam has 6.9 (http://geofon.gfz-potsdam.de/eqinfo/seismon/globmon.php)
The Richer Scale is rarely used these days ... pretty much the only ones you hear using it are the media

As I said earlier ...

davenn said:
the media always take a long time to get things right

all the local sensors would have maxed out on an even of this size, so difficult to get an accurate reading to lots of data from more distant sensors is analysed

Mw = moment magnitude is the standard one used in recent years
It gives a good true description of the size of the event

Based on the scalar seismic-moment of the earthquake, as determined by a moment-tensor inversion. Mwb – Mw based on moment tensor inversion of long-period (~10 - 100 s) body-waves (P- and SH). Mwc -- Moment magnitude derived from a centroid moment tensor inversion of intermediate- and long-period body- and surface-waves. Mwr -- Moment magnitude derived from a moment tensor inversion of complete waveforms at regional distances (less than ~13 degrees). Sometimes called RMT. Mww -- Moment magnitude derived from a centroid moment tensor inversion of the W-phase.

have a look here for all the different magnitude scales and what limitations/advantages they have

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/comcat/data-eventterms.php#magType

Note Richter magnitude is the second one down the list ... Local magnitude = MLDave
 
russ_watters said:
So I'm guessing the tsunami didn't amount to anything? It seems to have fallen off the news...
No damaging tsunami's, but did happen.
 
russ_watters said:
So I'm guessing the tsunami didn't amount to anything? It seems to have fallen off the news...

around 1.5 - 2 metres
 

Similar threads

Fukushima Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Fukushima part 2
  • Greg Bernhardt
  • · Replies 2K ·
  • Nuclear Engineering
60
Replies
2K
Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects
  • jlduh
  • · Replies 763 ·
  • Nuclear Engineering
26
Replies
763