Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024

There is a paragraph under the heading Tsunami, sub-heading Early Signs and Warnings, talking about how in some places the waterline receded and caused fatalities due to people picking up fish from the beach and being hit by the tsunami. This should be changed to include the reason for this, Positive and Negative parts of the tsunami wave. The waterline receded because the negative part of the wave hit it first. Jalapenosz (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source. DrowssapSMM 19:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024

add to « In Popular Culture section ».

Other Lives but Mine (French: D'autres vies que la mienne, published as Lives Other Than My Own in the United States) is a 2009 non-fiction book by the French writer Emmanuel Carrère that tells the stories of several people he had met. Carrère was vacationing in Sri Lanka at the time of the tsunami, and part of the book focuses on the aftermath and the tragedy of a French family who lost their four-year old daughter, Juliette. 2603:7000:6401:18AD:A979:D45B:AE7:E0F1 (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Death toll again

We now carry two totals in the body of the article, 227,898 and 229,866, both with impeccable sourcing, the difference being mainly in the total for India - I note that looking back through the web archives for the latter source that it was updated in January 2006. There are a lot of sources out there that use the approximation 230,000. This is qualified by "around", "about", "almost", "approximately", "nearly", "up to". Others say "greater than" but in one case the more nuanced "may exceed 230,000", a source that is itself cited to support "more than" in other sources. 280,000 is also still used in other sources, presumably referring back to earlier estimates before Indonesia reduced there numbers by 50,000. I'm personally comfortable with what is in the article now. Mikenorton (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mikenorton Isn't there a dispute over the total for Malaysia? Reported I believe 61 victims, but someone say 600, though whether this is credible I have not checked. I'm unsure of whether 227,898 and 229,866 should be used in the info box, as 227,898 is the Synthesis Report's final toll and seems to be the popular figure nowadays, but plenty of studies refer to the 229,866 given by the UN Envoy, though their website is gone. Reaper1945 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Reaper1945: You're thinking of Myanmar, not Malaysia and that is one reason for suspecting that the total may be in excess of 230,000 if we take the 229,866 number, but we have nothing definitive there. As I went looking for archived copies for the Human Toll given by the office of the UN envoy (not Bill Clinton himself), I noticed that the numbers were updated between different snapshots of the webpage. The biggest change was the number for India, which increased by nearly 6,000 between versions with the date of the source for the number changing between November 2005 and January 2006 (both Government of India). In contrast the number for India in the Synthesis Report derives from an article in December 2005 in Tribune India - which we should rely on is anybody's guess, as the latter mentions a reduction in the number of missing, to quote "India revised its earlier figure of 5,640 after lowering its estimate of people missing in Andaman and Nicobar Islands", which arguably refers to the number of missing, which it gives as 3,874. The difference between the two is 1,766, not quite the 1,968 between the two overall estimates, but it is the difference between the two estimates for India in the two lists. Most of the rest is the 196 extra deaths in Indonesia in the UN Office for the Envoy and I don't know where they came from. We'll never get a true answer and it's not worth trying I suspect. For various reasons the lower figure is I think preferable, but I'm happy that we include the higher number as an alternative. I've been searching for recent updates but found nothing definitive, so we may have to wait for the 20th anniversary later this year. Mikenorton (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've looked for quite a bit on the death toll numbers from recent estimations or studies and haven't had much luck. I have found quite a few more recent studies regarding its magnitude however, which is why I changed it to be between Mw 9.2–9.3, and the most recent study on the 1964 Alaskan earthquake compares previous studies and most give 9.1, including itself, so that has been revised. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mikenorton Also note a 2014 study I incorporated which gives a figure of 172,761 for Indonesia, higher than the usual number given. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Magnitude

@Reaper1945: I'm not sure about changing the magnitude. A very quick analysis of the titles of papers listed using the ISC link (all 959 of them) in the infobox gives the following number of mentions: 9.0 12, 9.1 9, 9.2 14, 9.3 11, although of course that's just the titles, but it is indicative that we should be keeping a bigger range than just 9.2–9.3. Mikenorton (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC) And the USGS use 9.1 referring to Duputel et al. (2012, although confusingly they give M9.2 in the paper. Mikenorton (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I based it off the revised magnitudes in the most recent studies, such as Kenji Satake and colleagues revising their magnitude from Mw 9.1 in 2007 to Mw 9.2 in 2017, the 2016 Bletery et al study which gives Mw 9.25 and notes its close to the Mw 9.3 obtained through normal mode analyses. The "latest" study in the 2000s which actually calculates the magnitude, from what I've been able to find, is the 2007 study by Stein and Okal of Mw 9.3. There's this 2017 study as well of Mw 9.35, though you may want to look at it. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The USGS really does not seemingly update its figures, just gives 9.1 for both Tohoku and Sumatra, and then you note the study they cite giving 9.2. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Even for the 1964 Alaskan earthquake, only one study gives a figure of 9.2, all studies well after it give it 9.07, 9.12, or 9.14. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I note that Gopinathan et al. (2017) were not attempting to recalculate the magnitude. They themselves think that the high slips in the northern part of the rupture that their inversion produces are not real but a result of thick soft sediments beneath the seabed. Any reduction in slip would lead to a lower estimated magnitude (as they say). I'll take another look through the other more recent (since Stein & Okal) papers. Mikenorton (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The most recent papers that set out to estimate magnitude (amongst other things) are Okal & Stein (2009) and Fujii et al. (2021). Okal & Stein confirm their earlier estimate of 9.3. Fujii et al. use tsunami data to invert for fault slip distribution and this gives a 9.2 magnitude, up from the 9.1 that they had previously calculated. In summary, 9.2–9.3 seems a fair range to have in the infobox. Mikenorton (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Energy Release

Energy release: according to Microsoft CoPilot. source is US Geological Survey. (did not give link to it).

"The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, also known as the Boxing Day earthquake, had an estimated energy release equivalent to 1.1 gigatons of TNT . This massive undersea earthquake triggered a devastating tsunami that affected several countries in the region."

Site: https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/2004-indian-ocean-earthquake-tsunami-facts

"The Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, which caused the tsunami, is estimated to have released energy equivalent to 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs."

I have heard even larger numbers than 1.1 Gigatons, but that 25 Megatons in Wiki article is way off, it is not true at all. It might be referring to the damage done buy actual water movement, or the energy in its movement, but i still see that 25 Megatons being misleading. TommiNystrom (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Hiroo Kanamori the radiated energy from this earthquake is about 1.38 x 10¹⁷ Joules (138 petaJoules). This is the equivalent to 33 Megatons, so 25 megatons is not egregiously wrong. You will need to come up with good quality scientific sources to persuade anyone to change the numbers used in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Common sense tells that 33 Megatons is not enough to cause 1000 kilometer rupture in earth crust.

It's the rupture that generates the energy release, not the other way round. Mikenorton (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That 33 MT radiated might mean something else, not total energy but "radiated", what ever that means.

NatGeo article: "The earthquake that generated the great Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 is estimated to have released the energy of 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)."

It mentions USGS, and that is credible source, i just can't find anything more than that, it needs original study/statement.

There should be interest to find that original statement from USGS, that's why i started this discussion. TommiNystrom (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I highly discourage magazines/websites when it comes to sourcing these scientific parameters. We should stick to peer-reviewed academic papers (that most magazines/news outlets source from).

You'll have to explain what do you mean by "common sence" here. It's not easy to visualise such a figure and compare that with real-world situations.

How do you interpret the 33 MT then. The USGS estimated 1.1×10¹⁷ Nm, which is a smaller estimate. Choy & Boatwright's estimate at 1.4×10¹⁷ Joules is not very far from Kanamori's estimate. 33 MT seems a reasonable estimate. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a 25 megaton figure in the article. Can you point to where exactly you're looking, TommiNystrom? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's 26MT, made little error there.

Link next to that 26MT from Wiki https://web.archive.org/web/20100404013939/http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2004/eq_041226/neic_slav_e.html

Talks about 8.5 Richter magnitude earthquake, but estimates have been later up to 9.3, that is big difference, up to 16 times in energy release.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/earthquake

Wiki article does say 9.2-9.3 in magnitude, so that 26MT from 8.5 is inaccurate.

Maybe we are not in that "1.1 Gigatons", but not far from it, 16 times 26 is 416.

So wiki article is little inconsistent on this in my opinion.

1.1 GT would be 9.5 magnitude EQ. TommiNystrom (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That USGS source uses an "energy magnitude" M_e, which is nothing to do with the Richter (local magnitude} scale. Mikenorton (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding to Mike's cmmts, large earthquakes of this size don't use the Richter scale. Using a different scale doesn't mean it's inaccurate, it's just a different calibration method. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok.

An amateur mistakes here and there.

But energy release magnitude should not be 8.5 in a eartquake that was estimated to be 9.3 in richter scale.

In this calculator for 9.3 Richter scale EQ https://earthalabama.com/energy.html#/

i get this: ~26266869 Megatons of TNT for the seismic moment (WHAT?), and ~1344 MT for the radiated energy.

I think this is the most i can come up with.

If rest of you think it's still ok to say 26MT for the radiated energy, so be it TommiNystrom (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

M8.5 and 9.5 were derived using different calibration methods and different signals ...

Also we stick to what the scientists have said, not some calculator we found on the internet that'll give us bigger values that we feel is most representative. Please take some time to look at reliable sources from credible authors to make your arguments compelling. I am inferring that you don't quite grasp the topic well yet and misunderstanding us. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Try getting your head round this paper. It talks about the total energy released in an earthquake being divided into three components - energy radiated as seismic waves (that's what we feel and is recorded by seismometers), fracture energy (that's energy expended creating new fracture surfaces along the fault plane and within the surrounding rock) and frictional energy (energy expended overcoming the frictional resistance to sliding that mostly appears as heat). The last two components are known as "dissipative" and they are judged to represent a large proportion of the total energy release, in fact the majority. This means that the total energy released is always much bigger than the energy radiated as seismic waves. I hope that helps. Mikenorton (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That calculator does use what scientist use, or that "scientist" just has some word salad printed for you.

So magnitude 9.3 in richter scale radiates much more energy than that 26MT or 33Mt, and yes im talking energy magnitude that is mentioned in the article. Try it.

Is that difficult to understand? You want it on paper? Do you want me to print it and sign it "scientist"?

That paper is proof of having paper, nothing more, it needs to be accurate and be based on same data than rest of the article and the event, as this wiki article talks about single event.

If article states the amount of energy release, it also should mention what the energy release actually is, currently it does not.

Read what wiki article says.

It says "energy release" and "radiated energy".

Go and use calculators to find out radiated energy of a 9.1-9.3 magnitude earthquake.

Or does that calculator give wrong result in your opinion?

And last: What kind of a scientific paper this is? https://web.archive.org/web/20100404013939/http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2004/eq_041226/neic_slav_e.html

That is link from the article, link 48 as a source for that 26MT, it is about certain moment, not the whole event. TommiNystrom (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Because keying in numbers by yourself and reporting the figures is WP:OR and the calculator itself, an unreliable source. We are not certain of the calculator's formula, and, even if we did, we do not have the authority do that here. Again, OR. Reiterating Mike, you still need to find compelling arguments and sources to back it up.

Radiated energy is a component of the total energy released, it is not representative of the entire event. Total seismic moment is larger, and for that value, it is 5.5 × 10²³ J, according to Yoshimoto & Yamanaka based on Mw 9.1.

FYI, we take talk page discussions seriously. Everything you've said, down to your phrasing, suggests you're either unsure of how scientific research works or straight up dismissive, and in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I would appreciate if you actually went into details to scrutinise the papers against other reliable sources, rather than using online calculators, and terms such as "word salad". Very unserious tone coming from you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The total seismic moment varies by a large margin as well. Assuming Mw 9.2, Fujii et al. (2021) places that at 7.74 × 10²² Nm. Tanioka et al. (2006) also assumes Mw 9.2 and estimated 7.2 × 10²² Nm, which they claim is similar to Park et al. (2005) and Ammon et al. (2005). Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It is supposed to be total radiated energy of total event, not just from one of the moments in the event as the source for 26MT suggest.

I think you should not link to that, and not even talk about energy released, as you have no authority to fix without someone writing a paper for it/about it.

I just assumed that, as a simple use of calculator show, that 9.3 in richter eq has energy radiated much more than that 26MT, and that the article can be fixed.

It is calculation that is done from data that is gathered from the event.

Erroneus information should be removed without having some scientific study to replace it.

But this is now become useless discussion, as you have no authority to remove false information from Wikipedia, as you seem to admit. TommiNystrom (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't even understand what you're trying to convey here. Are you reiterating my points back to me? Again it seems like you are misrepresenting all of our comments. I'm trying to help you get a better picture and you are either in denial or these concepts haven't been fully realised.

You keyed a figure between 9.1 and 9.3 into a calc. conveniently found on the internet is never going to be a strong basis for your arguments, and you're still stuck with it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this discussion is worth going further with this poor basis. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This last comment.

Link https://web.archive.org/web/20100404013939/http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2004/eq_041226/neic_slav_e.html does NOT to contain any scientific papers about this event, it contains data from single moment.

It is in webarchive, it cannot be found from original site, at least i did not find it.

Now i don't have scientific papers to replace that information, but i can point out that something is not right here, that's what i mostly try.

I pointed out that the tyre is flat, i dont have phd on tyre pressure, but i can see it is flat. Why an earth someone still thinks it's ok while they see same thing? I understand that online calculator is not good enough source to cite, but if it were erroneus someone would have pointed those online calculators as such long ago.

But for this purpose, it should be enough to point out that the tyre is flat, even that it is not giving us scientific paper about it.

Thank you all for your patience. TommiNystrom (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, there is no scientific paper to back that 26MT of radiated energy, so why is it up there? No scientific paper saying that radiated energy from this earthquake, that caused this destructive tsunami, is only 26MT.

It's placed there to mislead people in to thinking that earthquakes, even largest ones, are smaller than man made nuclear bombs. TommiNystrom (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just so we can see what's being discussed, here's the relevant passage:

The energy released on the Earth's surface (M_e, the energy magnitude, which is the seismic potential for damage) by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was estimated at 1.1×10¹⁷ joules (110 PJ; 26 Mt). This energy is equivalent to over 1,500 times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but less than that of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.

There are a few points worth looking at:

1. The 26 Mt TNT-equivalent figure does not come from the source. It is an automatically calculated figure from the 1.1e17 N m figure, which is from the source. Since the TNT equivalent is a directly convertible unit of the same dimension, using an automated calculation here isn't wrong, but I do have to ask whether it is appropriate, as it's a unit used for explosions, which earthquakes are not.
2. "Was estimated" is vague and weasely. The statement should clearly attribute the USGS and explain where the figure comes from. What is the USGS's "energy and broadband solution"? Why is there only one estimate for the energy magnitude and radiated energy, when the estimates for moment magnitude vary widely? Why are there no energy magnitude or radiated energy articles to link to for context? Are they obscure technical concepts, in which case they won't really warrant mentioning in an encyclopedia article aimed at the general reader? (Edit: I've added a redirect for energy magnitude following Dora the Axe-plorer's above link. The basic concept still needs to be better explained to the reader, though (compare the original version quoted below).)
3. The comparison of energy released to that of atomic bombs is unreferenced, probably an original comparison by Doseiai2, who added it way back in 2007. The citation was only there to supported a previous statement that the 1960 Chilean and 1964 Alaskan earthquakes were larger, which has since been removed, leaving the misattributed citation. I've removed it. Are there actually authoritative sources that compare earthquakes to bombs? Because without qualification, it is misleading as TommiNystrom raised and I suggest the statement be removed if nothing is found to back it up.

By the way, the passage when first added read like this:

The total energy released on the earth's surface only, M_Ewhich is the seismic potential for damage, by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was estimated at 1.1*10^17J or 26.3 megatons of TNT. This energy is equivalent to over 1502 times that of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but less than that of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. However, this is but a tiny fraction of the total work done (and thus energy) by this quake, the vast majority underground, measured by M_W, which was 4.0 X 10^30 dyn·cm. This equates to 4.0 x 10^22 J, over 363 thousand times more than its M_E. This is a truly enormous figure, equivalent to 9,560 gigatons of TNT equivalent (550 million times that of Hiroshima), far more than the Energy use in the United States in 2005 at 1.08 X 10^20 J.

It provided better context that addresses some of the points in above discussion, but much of the text was since removed. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC) – 07:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My idea in this is, to think how someone who is not an expert on these things read the information.

Headline says "energy release", and for sure someone thinks that they now have answer, to what kind of forces there is in this kind of earthquakes.

Throwing them "26Mt" and saying on top of that "less than Tsar bomb" is not the answer.

Would 26MT nuke cause tsunami like this was? No, it would not, not even close.

Article should be useful to people who want to have answers, answers that are close enough, and the method how that answer was achieved.

So maybe there could be energy for Total seismic movement and Energy release derived from that, and both mentioned in tons of TNT for comparison, to get some idea.

And that 1.1*10^17J is to my understanding from one short moment in the event, it's not the whole earthquake.

Energy should be calculated from those estimates of 9.2 or 9.3 in richter scale, momentum and radiated. TommiNystrom (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My idea in this is, to think how someone who is not an expert on these things read the information.

Headline says "energy release", and for sure someone thinks that they now have answer, to what kind of forces there is in this kind of earthquakes.

Throwing them "26Mt" and saying on top of that "less than Tsar bomb" is not the answer.

Would 26MT nuke cause tsunami like this was? No, it would not, not even close.

Article should be useful to people who want to have answers, answers that are close enough, and the method how that answer was achieved.

So maybe there could be energy for Total seismic movement and Energy release derived from that, and both mentioned in tons of TNT for comparison, to get some idea.

And that 1.1*10^17J is to my understanding from one short moment in the event, it's not the whole earthquake.

Energy should be calculated from those estimates of 9.2 or 9.3 in richter scale, momentum and radiated. TommiNystrom (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It goes back to whether there are reliable sources that actually discuss this; this discussion isn't going to lead anywhere unless sources are identified. I've just removed the offending passage for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References