MikeB4:
frankv:
dickytim: So we don't want the warnings until the data is crunched, but by the time the data is available the tsunami has been and gone?
On the other hand we don't want preventative warnings unless the data suggests there is a real danger coming.
This is the rock and the hard place.
Personally, I don't believe the story of it taking an hour to crunch the numbers. With modern computers and well-designed software (especially multi-threaded), there's very little analysis that will take an hour. I suspect the number-crunching story is a convenient myth, and that the actual time is spent on getting people to verify the results and decide what to do with it.
My brother in law is an engineer working in the field and he confirms the time and complexity
Well, they're still analysing data for the Kaikoura quake.
That doesn't excuse the fact that any idiot could look at the Kaikoura tsunami gauge, see that there was 2m wave height, and issue a warning immediately.
That didn't happen - because they didn't have anybody looking.