Comments on: 8.2 earthquake off Indonesia

8.2 earthquake off Indonesia

Mwongozi — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:06:35 -0800

Magnitude 8.2 earthquake off Indonesia Tsunami warning bulletins are posted here.

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:11:02 -0800

Crap. Here's hoping there's time to get to safety.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:11:10 -0800

Those people already had their fifteen minutes a few months ago. There's a woman dying in Florida now, you know.

By: n9

n9 — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:13:44 -0800

Christmas AND Easter. Just saying.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:13:59 -0800

For reference, the December 26th earthquake that produced the terrible tsunami was a magnitude 9.0 - 9.3, depending on whom you ask. Magnitude is a logarithmic scale. In other news, to paraphrase John's Adams's last words, Terry Schiavo still lives. (And Thomas Jefferson is probably still spinning in his grave.)

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:16:58 -0800

n9 writes "Christmas AND Easter. Just saying." And more orphaned heathen natives to convert! Truly God's mercy is wonderful to behold!

By: uni verse

uni verse — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:20:12 -0800

Attitude here: yuk.

By: Decani

Decani — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:22:38 -0800

Look, if this is going to get derailed into a religious argument, can I play the "Summon Bevets" card? Can I? Huh? Huh? Please? Meanwhile, I second the hope that there's enough warning this time.

By: MikeKD

MikeKD — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:23:12 -0800

Fuck.... .

By: sid

sid — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:25:34 -0800

Does anyone know how a ten-fold decrease in earthquake magnitude will affect wave magnitude?

By: spock

spock — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:26:28 -0800

Don'tchaknow? EVERY thread is an opportunity to troll for orthogonality! You must be new here

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:27:06 -0800

Decani writes "Meanwhile, I second the hope that there's enough warning this time." Unfortunately, the quake happened at 11Pm local time, and the areas affected by a tsunami are mostly too the west -- waves are going to be hitting, and people are going to be evacuating, in the dark. Let's wish them luck.

By: Mwongozi

Mwongozi — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:27:35 -0800

Sid: It depends on what type of earthquake it is, which as far as I know isn't known yet. Some types don't produce any tsunami even when they're very strong.

By: litlnemo

litlnemo — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:29:09 -0800

What MikeKD said.

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:29:20 -0800

orthogonality, I love your writing and you did some great stuff in that horrible SciAm/bevets train wreck. I'd hate to see that dwindle into sarcastic snark.

By: Mwongozi

Mwongozi — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:31:09 -0800

Updates from the BBC and CNN

By: Divine_Wino

Divine_Wino — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:32:06 -0800

There is a time and a place for the bottomless cold cup of coffee that is deeply bitter sarcasm and cynicism, I'm not sure where it begins and ends, but I'd be willing to place a bet that it ended somewhere above this post. Moral and Ironic calculus is flawed, number of deaths versus one's right to make a joke is a personal line best explored in the time it takes to count to 10 or 20 in the head, the slavering attention mad American media may not be the best proving ground for the sharp edge of your scathing wit, because like Mother Nature or the indifference of a mad God the media can take all you throw at it and come back for more, more, more. I hope everybody is all right and wish the human condition was a better one. Selah.

By: jenleigh

jenleigh — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:33:55 -0800

Via Geotimes: On the heels of the December 2004 tsunami that devastated Indonesia and resulted in the deaths of almost 300,000 people, scientists are taking a closer look at the seismic and tsunami risk of various faults around the world. Recent research indicates that Indonesia, as well as other regions like the Caribbean, could experience more earthquake and tsunami activity in the near future. John McCloskey and colleagues from the University of Ulster, United Kingdom, calculated the stress on the Sunda trench subduction zone and Sumatra fault, caused by recent seismic activity. Their results, published in the March 17 Nature, indicate an increase in the stress on both of the fault zones due to the movement of the initial quake in December. Anyone know the approximate delay between a magnitude being recorded and tidal waves hitting the shore? Hard to believe people from that region could suffer any more terribly this year.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:39:07 -0800

sid writes "Does anyone know how a ten-fold decrease in earthquake magnitude will affect wave magnitude?" It may not be a ten-fold decrease. Each order of magnitude is about a 32-fold increase/decrease in the energy of the quake -- but the initial measurement of the December quake started in the eights, and was later found to be higher. So the current "8.2" measurement may well increase as we know more, and at this point it's still unclear how this quake compares to the December quake. Not to mention that are tsunamis going to be dependent on location as well as magnitude. So at this point, I think we just have to wait and see what happens. goodnewsfortheinsane writes "orthogonality, I love your writing and you did some great stuff in that horrible SciAm/bevets train wreck. I'd hate to see that dwindle into sarcastic snark." Thanks. If it seems like snark, I apologize, but it's more just a terrible cynicism. There's not much one can say about a natural disaster, -- it's bad, but what can you say? -- but one can't help anticipate, that like last time, some -- not all -- religious groups will use the disaster as an excuse to proselytize, just as one can't help but remember that President Bush stayed on vacation during the previous disaster but flew back to DC to sign the Schiavo Bill. I wish I could honestly believe otherwise, and I hope you'll forgive me that I can't. (And I hope you'll notice I am trying to contribute useful technical information as well. (And why do I always get pasted for what Mayor Curley gets away with?)

By: Dean Keaton

Dean Keaton — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:40:38 -0800

I hope everyone makes it out of this one allright. I'm sure having recently experienced this they will be quicker to get the hell out of shoreline.

By: flashboy

flashboy — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:41:37 -0800

USGS, the ones recording this as an 8.2 now, first recorded the December 26th quake as an 8.1. Oh shit. Perhaps. Let's hope not.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:43:53 -0800

THERE IS NO TSUNAMI WARNING OR WATCH IN EFFECT. ... WARNING... THIS EARTHQUAKE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE A WIDELY DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI IN THE OCEAN OR SEAS NEAR THE EARTHQUAKE. AUTHORITIES IN THOSE REGIONS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS POSSIBILITY AND TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION. Yeah, nice. Nice and userfriendly there, National Weather Service.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:47:22 -0800

jenleigh writes "Anyone know the approximate delay between a magnitude being recorded and tidal waves hitting the shore?" 15 minutes (Sumatra in Indonesia) to seven hours (East Africa). So any tsunami has already hit in Indonesia, and now it proceeds east-ward for the next five or six hours (as the quake struck about an hour and forty minutes ago).

By: reflection

reflection — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:53:03 -0800

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. THERE IS NO TSUNAMI WARNINGOR WATCH IN EFFECT. link

By: peacay

peacay — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:54:37 -0800

Sad. Luck be with them.

By: litlnemo

litlnemo — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:55:56 -0800

P_G, reflection, that is because that particular document is for the Pacific Basin. There is no tsunami danger in the Pacific. The tsunami would be in the Indian Ocean.

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:55:57 -0800

On the New York Times. There's one quote: ``I was getting ready for bed, and suddenly, the room started shaking,' said Kuala Lumpur resident Jessie Chong. ``I thought I was hallucinating at first, but then I heard my neighbors screaming and running out.'

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:56:56 -0800

Oh holy crap, not again.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:57:03 -0800

The analysis I've been reading suggests that the type of quake is very important to determining the size of any tsunami effects. Not only was the December quake huge, but the plates shifted in the worst possible direction, up against the water collumn. A slip quake may be less of an issue. Also in regards to the linked warning: "THIS BULLETIN IS FOR ALL AREAS OF THE PACIFIC BASIN EXCEPT ALASKA - BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON - CALIFORNIA." (emphasis added), It's about like looking at the weather in NYC for information on supercells in Oklahoma.

By: Decani

Decani — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0800

I wasn't having a dig, ortho. I really did want to play the Summon Bevets card.

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:00:51 -0800

The PTWC bulletin says 8.5 now.

By: sciurus

sciurus — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:06:02 -0800

By: caution live frogs

caution live frogs — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:09:51 -0800

Maybe those people praying to save one ruined life in Florida can find the time to think a little bit about the hundreds of thousands of ruined lives elsewhere in the world for a few minutes. Hoping for the best... fearing the worst. (Of course the Schiavo people won't care. The people hit by the tsunami were brown, and they didn't believe in Jesus, so they apparently don't count. Fucking hypocrites.)

By: Mwongozi

Mwongozi — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:14:18 -0800

Actually it said 8.5 first. The event page was quickly downgraded to 8.2.

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:19:32 -0800

Thanks for clarifying, mwongozi.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:26:07 -0800

(Of course the Schiavo people won't care. The people hit by the tsunami were brown, and they didn't believe in Jesus, so they apparently don't count. Fucking hypocrites.) This generalization and assumption stuff, it work out for you?

By: dig_duggler

dig_duggler — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:29:38 -0800

Sad. Luck be with them. Ditto. This really really sucks.

By: dances_with_sneetches

dances_with_sneetches — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:29:55 -0800

Isn't it about time that we develop a more informative system of describing earthquakes? A linear number scale is so uninformative that it may cause more harm (panic) than good (evacuation). Why not append it with a letter that automatically presents the class of quake, so people will know whether they should run to the hills or only make more modest adjustments in their behaviors? It seems that this can be useful for planning, construction, and response in earthquake areas.

By: ism

ism — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:36:26 -0800

Huge quake hits Indonesian coast Latest Pacific Tsunami Bulletin Thousands evacuate after large quake India says no tsunami warning has been issued

By: Plutor

Plutor — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:36:43 -0800

dances_with_sneetches: "Isn't it about time that we develop a more informative system of describing earthquakes? A linear number scale is so uninformative that it may cause more harm (panic) than good (evacuation). Why not append it with a letter that automatically presents the class of quake, so people will know whether they should run to the hills or only make more modest adjustments in their behaviors? It seems that this can be useful for planning, construction, and response in earthquake areas." The number scale isn't linear, it's exponential. A "magnitude 8.2G" earthquake wouldn't inform people more than just "8.2", especially because when there's a strong earthquake (or when people are told "mumble mumble mumble incoming tsunami"), there's fear, and when there's fear, people stop thinking rationally. I'd be running like crazy, stepping over anyone in my path if I were in southeast Asia right now, too.

By: flashboy

flashboy — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:38:37 -0800

Reports on BBC radio suggesting that although panic in Aceh is widespread, actual damage is minimal, and there's no signs of water movement. Apparently some analysis suggests that a tsunami may have been formed, but with limited spread, heading in a tight "beam" towards (apparently) Mauritius.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:46:04 -0800

> . That dot is premature. Really only neccessary if there is a ~

By: dances_with_sneetches

dances_with_sneetches — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:47:30 -0800

plutor. Okay, my mistake, your mistake. It isn't linear, it isn't exponential, it's logarithmic. Perhaps because logarithms aren't intuitive, by itself it's less informative. And I do think that a simple categorization would be more informative. People can learn to associate class A with no likelihood of tsunami, or class X as being the most dangerous. I think an appended letter designation would be helpful. It seems from the posts so far that there is not a tsunami (or maybe only for Mauritius). Again, that would be useful to know. I'll opine a bit further. We categorize hurricaines with a simple number system, but the length of time the sustained winds will be in an area, whether it is a flood inducing hurricaine -- I think a simple extension to the categorization would be helpful and save lives.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:49:51 -0800

Oh good a conversation about what the "." means. *heh*. I believe in this instance it means something like grim hope, rather then pontificating (which is what i'm doing, tisk me). In which case .

By: ScotchLynx

ScotchLynx — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:01:04 -0800

dances - I think the problem with what you are suggesting is that that kind of information is simply not available instantly. form one of the links above: "At this point in time we don't know what type of fault occurred ... and that is critical information we just don't have yet,"

By: ScotchLynx

ScotchLynx — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:03:22 -0800

*From* one of the links above

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:07:48 -0800

Informative to whom? The Richter scale is an informative measurement of the amount of energy involved in a quake. There is also the Mercalli scale that provides a qualitative view of the effects of a particular quake, but would be useless for providing warnings. The basic problem is that for most areas, you can't predict the kinds of damage that will be caused by an earthquake of a given magnitude. Damage depends quite a bit on local conditions such as soil type, hydrology and building codes. Even worse, we don't have good models of Tsunami creation that allows us to say, "this earthquake is going to produce a tsunami of this size." Tsunami effects are also highly local depending on the shape of the basin they travel in. Magnitude is used because it is usually the first thing that is known about a quake from regional stations.

By: sciurus

sciurus — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:11:15 -0800

I believe in this instance it means something like grim hope grim hope. yes.

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:16:20 -0800

The USGS just upgraded the quake to an 8.7. (And yes, I actually saw the page change this time.)

By: leotrotsky

leotrotsky — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:17:17 -0800

page now says 8.7, that can't be good

By: riffola

riffola — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:17:25 -0800

It says "Magnitude 8.7 - NORTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA 2005 March 28 16:09:36 UTC" on the event page now.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:17:36 -0800

(And why do I always get pasted for what Mayor Curley gets away with?) People want consistency. If you're insightful for a while, you're expected to be one of the "insightful ones." Eventually, people will just take any snarks you make along the way as Deep Thinking. I say this because any thoughtful contributions I make invariably receive a "STFU, SARCASTIC ASSWIPE!" Choose your pigeonhole carefully. (I'm not complaining about this. One of the reasons I keep coming back is the nasty responses and emails I get for statements as innoccuous as my preference for certain cheese varieties. "YOU WOULD LIKE JARLSBERG, COCK!")

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:19:47 -0800

Also, from the PTWC's most recent bulletin: NOTE: THERE HAS BEEN NO MAJOR TSUNAMI OBSERVED NEAR THE EPICENTER. THERE WAS HOWEVER A SMALL TSUNAMI OBSERVED ON THE COCOS TIDE GAGE.

By: peacay

peacay — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:19:48 -0800

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:20:22 -0800

Latest Pacific Tsunami Bulletin Why the repeated links the NOAA Pacific bulletins for an event that is not in the Pacific?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:22:27 -0800

(And yes, I actually saw the page change this time.) wow. something to tell your grandchildren about, eh?

By: Mwongozi

Mwongozi — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:24:02 -0800

There is no Indian ocean warning system, so the Pacific bulletins are all we have.

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:26:43 -0800

Try to find an Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning page. One that actually works right now (unlike the ioc.unesco.org). On Preview: Seems the ioc IndoTsunami page is working for me now, albeit very slowly. There's no information on there relevant to today's event. quonsar: read above RE: me speaking too soon

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:30:07 -0800

Looks like the force of the quake, and the resulting waves, may have been directed South, away from any land.

By: mss

mss — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:32:00 -0800

Christmas AND Easter. Just saying While we wait for hopefully good news that there is not a major tsunami is associated with this quake the following should be considered. The 12/26 event was, allowing for time zones, 4 days after the winter solstice and 1 day after the celebrated birth of Christ. Today is 8 days after the Vernal Equinox and 1 day after the resurrection of Christ. Following that pattern 16 days after the summer solstice is July 7 and if we can find an event on July 6 of the magnitude of Christmas and Easter it could spell the End of Time.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:45:23 -0800

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:45:40 -0800

Oh, and before everyone gets all hyped up over the differences in reports, magnitude estimates have an error of +/- 0.3 after all the data is in. There is no Indian ocean warning system, so the Pacific bulletins are all we have. Certainly, on the other hand, I suspect that pointing to a page centered on the United States in regards to tsunami warnings is potentially misleading. Is the PTWC authorized to issue warnings about tsunamis that don't affect U.S. coasts? Basically, it provides no more information than is found from Indian networks, with a lot of added junk that as we have seen on this thread, has caused some confusion. The latest bulletin seems to make this clear: "...THIS TSUNAMI INFORMATION BULLETIN IS FOR ALASKA - BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON AND CALIFORNIA ONLY..."

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:06:19 -0800

Nice name: Waverly Person, a geophysicist as the U.S. Geological Survey's National Earthquake Information Center, told MSNBC that there was "a good possibility" that no tsunami hit the Sumatran coast this time around, because none was reported even two hours after the earthquake. "They would have hit by now if there were a tsunami," Person said. The Dec. 26 tsunami wave traveled across open ocean at speeds of up to 500 mph (800 kilometers per hour).

By: scottreynen

scottreynen — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:19:33 -0800

So at what point has it been long enough that we would have heard of a major tsunami if there were one? (On preview, thanks quasistoic.) Following that pattern 16 days after the summer solstice is July 7 and if we can find an event on July 6 of the magnitude of Christmas and Easter it could spell the End of Time. That's assuming the pattern is doubling, but it could be adding 4 each time, which would make it 12 days instead. Whenever it is, I think you're looking at it backward. On Christmas, Jesus was born. On Easter, Jesus returned from the dead. The next event is obviously the second coming. And the earthquake the following day, be it July 7 or July 3, will be part of the apocalypse.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:26:38 -0800

quonsar is a genius

By: shoppingforsanity

shoppingforsanity — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:40:41 -0800

That's assuming the pattern is doubling, but it could be adding 4 each time, which would make it 12 days instead. Whenever it is, I think you're looking at it backward. On Christmas, Jesus was born. On Easter, Jesus returned from the dead. The next event is obviously the second coming. And the earthquake the following day, be it July 7 or July 3, will be part of the apocalypse. Awesome. PSA: Everyone make sure to wear clean underwear on July 3rd and 7th. (I'm just relieved that it seems that there will be no tsunamis today.)

By: RockBandit

RockBandit — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:54:29 -0800

According to this article in the New Scientist that was posted on March 16, this earthquake was expected. The Sumatra fault is not the only threat. A second quake along the Sunda trench, a continuation of the India-Burma subduction zone, could lead to another tsunami. An earthquake in this area was considered overdue even before the quake farther north on the same fault which caused last year's tsunami. "This south-east part of the subduction zone has been accumulating stress since 1833 and 1861, and the recent earthquake will have added more," says Phil Cummins of Geoscience Australia. An earthquake in the Sunda trench could potentially reach magnitude 8.5, McCloskey warns, and could trigger another tsunami. Because it would start further south than the one last year, it would probably not strike Thailand, but Sri Lanka and the west coast of Africa could be hit again, as would Sumatra. Seismologist Seth Stein of Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois, agrees: "If the next bit south broke it could create a comparable tsunami."

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:56:06 -0800

That's assuming the pattern is doubling, but it could be adding 4 each time, which would make it 12 days instead. Whenever it is, I think you're looking at it backward. On Christmas, Jesus was born. On Easter, Jesus returned from the dead. The next event is obviously the second coming. And the earthquake the following day, be it July 7 or July 3, will be part of the apocalypse. What the hell? Does that mean I'm not going to get to see the "Revelations" miniseries on NBC this fall? And quonsar wins. That hurt so much and so good.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:03:05 -0800

An 8.7, now? Woot, top ten. Interesting times, interesting times. The December quake was a "megathrust" type, which actually changed the height of the seafloor, displacing a massive amount of water. That doesn't always happen.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:18:10 -0800

At least 50 dead, as of now. Although it sounds like that has more to do with the direct effect of the quake rather than wave action

By: trinarian

trinarian — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:35:13 -0800

Not only is this one day after Christmas and one day after Easter thing a little creepy, but the last biggie happened one year to the hour after the last big one before that in Bam, Iran... which again, was the day after Christmas.

By: RockBandit

RockBandit — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:38:26 -0800

The December quake was a "megathrust" type, which actually changed the height of the seafloor, displacing a massive amount of water. That doesn't always happen. Technically, any thrust that breaks the surface is going to change the elevation of the land/sea floor around it. Hence, that is why tsunamis usually occur as a result of earthquakes rupturing normal/reverse/thrust faults. (There are some instances of earthquakes on transform faults possibly creating tsunamis due to certain mechanics of moving an underwater slope/hill and displacing water. i.e. unusual wave recorded shortly after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.)

By: Mach3avelli

Mach3avelli — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:55:59 -0800

TsunamiFilter /uncalled for

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:36:32 -0800

number of deaths versus one's right to make a joke is a personal line best explored in the time it takes to count to 10 or 20 in the head Just wanted to see that one again. Thanks to everyone who posted information rather than idiocy.

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:41:19 -0800

The largest earthquake in US history was the Good Friday Earthquake of 1964. , which measured a 9.2 on the Richter Scale, caused waves as large as 60m and killed people as far away as Crescent City CA. Remind me to stay away from the coast during Christian holidays in future. Is the PTWC authorized to issue warnings about tsunamis that don't affect U.S. coasts? Basically, it provides no more information than is found from Indian networks, with a lot of added junk that as we have seen on this thread, has caused some confusion. Considering that they tried and failed to warn people through the official channels last time, and were roundly criticized for it, I'd say they were distributing this info every way they could possibly think of.

By: m39

m39 — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:43:11 -0800

if God is just, why must the poor always suffer and die like flies ?