1
1
0
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/03/earth-science-modelling-the-disaster-data-dilemma/?MessageRunDetailID= [login to see] &PostID=27137039&utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io
The maximum height of the 2011 tsunami isn’t known because the sea-level gauge at the plant was destroyed. Tepco and the Japan Society of Civil Engineers estimate it approached land at a height of 13.1m before reaching a staggering 14-17m above sea level as it swung up the slope towards the plant: more than 40 per cent higher than the waves created by the Chilean tsunami.
Yet there was data to suggest such a disaster was a near-on certainty. Advances in tsunami and earthquake modelling made years before the Fukushima disaster had placed the probability of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake or greater hitting the region at 99 per cent – the 2011 earthquake registered at 9.1. In 2008, simulations made by in-house engineers warned that Daiichi was at risk of being hit by a monster wave in the near future.
We say with varying degrees of accuracy because the size of the dataset, for example, can impact the outcome. The type of Earth science being applied can shift the dial. The relevance of records can hinder the results, and the motivation behind the analysis – perhaps political or financial – can skew the conclusion. Plus, given that many of these systems apply a global model to local changes, probabilities for the same event can fluctuate wildly. There isn’t an all-encompassing database that accounts for all eventualities.
To demonstrate this variation, a report called ‘High resolution climate-hydrology scenarios for San Francisco’s Bay Area’ recently analysed 18 different climate models simulating how the climate of the Bay will change by 2077. Temperature change values ranged from a 1°C to a 6°C increase, whereas precipitation levels ranged as wildly as a 20 per cent decrease on one side to a 40 per cent increase on the other, depending on which model was used.
The maximum height of the 2011 tsunami isn’t known because the sea-level gauge at the plant was destroyed. Tepco and the Japan Society of Civil Engineers estimate it approached land at a height of 13.1m before reaching a staggering 14-17m above sea level as it swung up the slope towards the plant: more than 40 per cent higher than the waves created by the Chilean tsunami.
Yet there was data to suggest such a disaster was a near-on certainty. Advances in tsunami and earthquake modelling made years before the Fukushima disaster had placed the probability of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake or greater hitting the region at 99 per cent – the 2011 earthquake registered at 9.1. In 2008, simulations made by in-house engineers warned that Daiichi was at risk of being hit by a monster wave in the near future.
We say with varying degrees of accuracy because the size of the dataset, for example, can impact the outcome. The type of Earth science being applied can shift the dial. The relevance of records can hinder the results, and the motivation behind the analysis – perhaps political or financial – can skew the conclusion. Plus, given that many of these systems apply a global model to local changes, probabilities for the same event can fluctuate wildly. There isn’t an all-encompassing database that accounts for all eventualities.
To demonstrate this variation, a report called ‘High resolution climate-hydrology scenarios for San Francisco’s Bay Area’ recently analysed 18 different climate models simulating how the climate of the Bay will change by 2077. Temperature change values ranged from a 1°C to a 6°C increase, whereas precipitation levels ranged as wildly as a 20 per cent decrease on one side to a 40 per cent increase on the other, depending on which model was used.
earth-science-modelling-the-disaster-data-dilemma
Posted from eandt.theiet.org
ENG: Engineering
Climate Change
Natural Disaster
Energy
Transportation
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
My son-in-law was in the reactor vessel doing a project on it for GE when the earthquake hit. He and one other guy from South Georgia ran out of the building when the pool came out into the facility. it is my understanding that two guys from California dove under desk. I'm not sure what the final out come was for them. My son-in-law and the other guy got in a car but when they drove around the building the road was all torn up so they had to get out and run up a hill to get away from the tsunami. It took him 5 days to get to Tokyo. We had no communication with him for those five days. My wife and I drove up to NC to be with our daughter and baby grandson. I contacted my congressman about getting the carrier that was off the coast at the time to send a helo to reconnoiter since there was a team of Americans in the reactor at the time of the quake. He contacted the State Department to see what could be done to locate those Americans. The next day I got a call from a ranking individual in GE telling me to mind my own business and stop calling congressmen and the state department. I told him in Navy terms where he could go and what he could do.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thanks for adding valuable context to the most serious natural disaster incident that happened. It was the worst of want could possibly happen. There will always be a next event in a year, or maybe a thousand years. That’s the trouble with trying to predict: we never know how large the next event will be, or how long it will be until we get it. Hindsight is always 20-20.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google