Scientists say tsunami models should be tested

March 2, 2010 By HERBERT A. SAMPLE , Associated Press Writer

(AP) -- In the coming months and years, scientists will pore over reams of data from what turned out to be the minuscule tsunami that reached Hawaii on Saturday.

But already, some scientists are saying there is less need for additional measuring equipment of the kind that was placed in the Pacific Ocean after the devastating that killed 230,000 people around the Indian Ocean in 2004.

Instead, they say there should be a rigorous examination of long-standing assumptions within computer-generated models that are used to estimate the strength and impact of tsunamis.

"Our main problem right now is that we have unsubstantiated assumptions built into our and we really have to check those," said Gerard Fryer, a geophysicist at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii and formerly a professor at the University of Hawaii.

Had he been asked a week ago whether a magnitude 8.8 in would cause a destructive tsunami in Hawaii, "I would have said, 'Unquestionably. It's going to be a bad scene,'" Fryer added. "Well, it wasn't. And we have to figure out why it wasn't."

The small tsunami generated by Saturday's quake in Chile also may provide an impetus for the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center to more fully adopt a forecasting system developed by another National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agency.

From the data gathered so far, the system designed by the Center for Tsunami Research in Seattle appears to have accurately estimated the severity of the tsunami that reached Hawaii.

"Our forecast played out pretty well," said Vasily Titov, the center's director. Because the system is still in development, its results were initially shared only with Pacific Tsunami Warning Center officials and not the public or news media, he added.

One assumption that Fryer said should be reassessed presumes that the Chilean quake occurred in deeper waters than actually happened. A rupture in deeper seas would have displaced more water and thus resulted in a larger tsunami, Fryer said.

Another assumption says tsunami waves travel at about the same speed, and it does not emphasize the intervals between waves, he said. But wave speed and intervals can affect how tsunamis interact with coastal zones, particularly bays and harbors, Fryer added.

The 1960 Chile quake that spawned huge waves that killed dozens on the Big Island and in Japan featured a longer interval between waves, about 30 minutes, than did the tsunami that lapped at Hawaii's coasts on Saturday, which were about 20 minutes apart. But the current models do not sufficiently take intervals into account, Fryer said.

The models also did not calculate "dispersion," which reduces the strength of tsunami waves as they spread out over the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, Fryer said. However, adding that factor into the models would greatly increase computational costs, he added.

That is not to say that tsunami warnings should not have been issued, he said. Some data such as that from deep sea gauges off the Peruvian coast indicated a destructive tsunami was in the offing, Fryer said.

Since the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, the oceanic and atmospheric administration has won funding to place more deep sea gauges in the Pacific, from a half-dozen to 32 now, said Charles McCreery, director of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

But fewer of them are stationed off South America than in the Alaska region because tsunamis generated off Alaska will reach Hawaii and the West Coast faster, he said.

"This will be a very important benchmark tsunami because it was recorded all over the Pacific," McCreery said, noting that in addition to its gauges, his agency collects data from well over 100 coastal meters.

Among the models whose performance will be reviewed is the one developed by NOAA's Center for Tsunami Research, which is called MOST, or Method of Splitting Tsunami.

Titov said the model will be compared with data from gauges and other sources to determine its accuracy. The MOST model has performed well in analyzing smaller tsunamis, McCreery said. And Fryer said it is used by the Pacific Center now, alongside a homegrown model.

But Fryer contended that neither model accurately calculated that the tsunami that arrived in Hawaii Saturday would be minimal.

Explore further: Tsunami-warning buoys launched in Pacific

More information: Center for Tsunami Research:


Related Stories

Tsunami-warning buoys launched in Pacific

December 30, 2006

Six new tsunami reporting stations were deployed in the Pacific Ocean, providing more lead time for U.S. areas at the greatest risk, federal officials said.

Tsunami not yet detected: expert

April 2, 2007

Although the Bureau of Metereology had issued a tsunami warning, at this stage a tsunami had not yet been detected, a University of Queensland geophysicist said this morning.

East Coast tsunamis maps to be created

November 23, 2005

Two University of Rhode Island scientists have been awarded an $86,000 grant to create tsunami warning maps of the East Coast of the United States.

U.S. expands tsunami warning system

August 22, 2006

The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration says it has expanded its network of deep-ocean buoys to guard against tsunamis.

Recommended for you

Maximizing the environmental benefits of autonomous vehicles

February 15, 2018

The added weight, electricity demand and aerodynamic drag of the sensors and computers used in autonomous vehicles are significant contributors to their lifetime energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2010
It is evident that a lot more work is required to improve the accuracy of these models. But, why just rely on computer models?

Why can't the host of satellites that circle the globe be roped in to augment the information available to the Tsunami warning centres? Visual confirmation of a wave front moving along the surface of the ocean should be more reliable and comforting to the staff in the warning centres.

Is this another case of building academic silos, bloated egos, and people not willing to share information?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.