NationStates Jolt Archive

-EDIT NOTE: This is the final version. Right now it's on page 17. Please support it!-

Title: Tsunami Warning System
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Description: International Ocean Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Detection and Warning

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly hereby proposes an international network of buoys that would provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal regions.

Especially in many poorer regions, nations lack the funds to construct and maintain a buoy system in their waters. As such, when large tidal waves approach their coast, they have no warning whatsoever, and can not take the necessary precautions to prevent the excessive loss of life and property.

The United Nations proposes that:

1. Buoy Network
A network of buoys shall be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the coast, as space permits. These would give advance warnings of approximately* 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours to nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave.

*Based on an average tidal wave speed of 800 ki/hr (497 mi/hr)

These buoys will be established in areas of volcanic or tectonic plate activity, as those are the only areas in which large, destructive tidal waves actually occur, and will be built in collaboration with the pre-existing buoy systems of other nations.

2. Tsunami Emergency Warning Center
The United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) be established. A team of technical experts will be kept at the center at all times to continuously monitor data from the buoys. In the case of a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will...
-- Issue a warning advisory and send ocean current data to all nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave. The national governments can then evacuate its citizens and take precautions as they see fit.
-- Send out an alert will to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), to prepare an emergency response team to be at the ready in the case of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, to send a response team to coastal areas to assist in evacuation and safety plans.

Unrestricted access to the data from the buoys shall be provided to nations that have established or choose to establish ocean monitoring or emergency warning centers.

3. Coastal Receiver/Satellite Network
A network of coastal receivers and satellites be established (in collaboration with existing receiver systems) and maintained to monitor the buoys. These coastal land receivers and satellites will constantly monitor data transmitted from the buoys, and send them to the Tsunami Early Warning Center previously mentioned.

The initial funds to create the system shall be contributed to by ALL member nations, as a massive tsunami disaster would have far-reaching effects on ALL nations, not simply coastal ones. However, after the initial creation of items 1, 2, and 3, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on the coastal nations.

Additionally, the United Nations proposes that an international convention of coastal nations be convened to establish standard international warning protocols and help all coastal nations at risk of tidal wave disasters develop and train for a tidal wave response procedure.

Proposal by the Dominion of Tejasdom, with contributions by the Confederated City States of Mikitivity and the Federation of Grosseschnauzer.

What do you guys think? Anything I need to add/remove before i put this proposal in?

I'm glad to see I'm not the only "government" upset by yesterday's tragic disaster.

I just posted a new discussion on this topic in the United Nations Organizations forum:

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=35

In particular to the long article estimated the RL death toll above 22,000, I was thinking that an early tsunami warning system is an excellent idea. When I designed the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution I was focusing on events of this magnitude, but looking in the wrong direction. Later, the Good Samaritan Laws were designed originally as an "International Disaster Relief" proposal and talked about moving the NS created IRCO into expanding its role from short-term disaster relief to long-term disaster relief.

While I'm convinced that many lives could have been saved by a global early warning system, I'd like to propose that our NS response be to create a IMO -- International Maritime Organization. The IRCO would still be the appropriate means to respond to this disaster, but the IMO would have many responsibilities focusing perhaps on prevention, including the warning system.

As for your idea, there already was going to be a real world UN conference on international disasters to be held in ... Kobe Japan (an appropriate setting) in Jan. While I seriously want to help out with this, I can't help but think that if we can spin our wheels for three weeks, that we'll also happen to have some good UN reports in hand soon too.

More specific stuff to follow, but my advice would be to craft this as a more standard UN resolution.

I'd also focus on item 2, and play down items 1 and 3. Let's let the "experts" we hire for item 2 handle the science details.

The reason I say this is nations / players just love to pick on details.

I'd highly recommend that a line about the IRCO be added in the resolution.

I too am saddened by the great loss of life in recent events. Do scientists know how far off the coast the Tsunami started? Does anyone know how fast a Tsunami moves? If a Tsunami was going to form over 400 miles off shore, how much time would the impacted area be given until said wave hits the region. One hour? Two? Twelve? I think that the idea of a sonar array to detect the event of a Tsunami would be a good idea, I have my doubts as to its practicallity. If a Tsunami started far enough out in the ocean, then yes I could see where it would have its uses and benefits. But if a Tsunami starts closer to shore, say within 400 miles, no one would know about it until it was upon them.

Edit: (Out of Character) Kinda freaky having a Tsunami in South/South East Asia. About 4 months ago I had a dream that I was in an apartment building, on the third floor out on the balcony in some tropical area, and I watched a large wall of water sweep over the land and envelop the two floors below me in water. When I saw pictures of the event I had a sense of Deja Vu.

I agree pretty much with Mik.

Except I say to name the organization United Nations International Maritime Organization (UNIMO). This prevents confusion with In My Opinion (IMO).

Well to answer your question Cormi, tidal waves move at 450 mph. I think i wrote that somewhere in there. But the people in Southeast Asia had around an hour (depending on where they were) between when the earthquake started and when the waves hit the coast.

Admittedly, there's not too much one CAN do... even if a tsunami were to start in the middle of the pacific ocean, the most it would take is 4 hours to reach shore (that would be the 3200 km i proposed). It's not enough to form the kind of large-scale, organized evacuation you would have with a forest fire or hurricane, but even with 4 hours, or even an hour, it would at least help save a significant number of lives. People would be able to move a significant distance inland, or higher up at least.

Well to answer your question Cormi, tidal waves move at 450 mph. I think i wrote that somewhere in there. But the people in Southeast Asia had around an hour (depending on where they were) between when the earthquake started and when the waves hit the coast.

Admittedly, there's not too much one CAN do... even if a tsunami were to start in the middle of the pacific ocean, the most it would take is 4 hours to reach shore (that would be the 3200 km i proposed). It's not enough to form the kind of large-scale, organized evacuation you would have with a forest fire or hurricane, but even with 4 hours, or even an hour, it would at least help save a significant number of lives. People would be able to move a significant distance inland, or higher up at least.

Let's host a conference on them ... in other words, while I trust you are getting reliable numbers, I'd love a few links so that a few more of us could be experts on the wave speed and travel time of the waves.

The problem we are going to have is the often argued belief that NationStates is not exactly Earth. That means that even a 4 hour travel time in the Indian Ocean might not be enough to really convince as many votes as we'd like.

We can certainly get 60% of the votes out there (especially in light of the fact that for the past 2-3 days 1,000s of nations and hundreds of UN members have left the game ... i.e. expired), but I'd like to do this right. Make a resolution that is fitting for both NationStates and addresses this problem.

That said, the focus shouldn't entirely be on international efforts to forecast and predict the costal areas at risk. That is important. But I really think we should at least not completely abandon your early warning network. Perhaps the approach to take would be to look at what I and Hui Bei did with our two Moral Decency issues and then Tracking Near Earth Objects.

Ask nations that are declared at risk to make evacuation plans.

The reason for this being an international issue, is hundreds of Americans are missing. While most Americans might argue that our country wasn't impacted (this time), those whom lost family members might have appreciated a bit of US muscle asking these countries to have some sort of plan.

More later ...

I might have missed it, but do they have a time of day at which this happened? And did they have much of a warning beforehand? If you felt an earthquake, would you necessarily know that a Tsunami was coming? The last time I lived in an earthquake prone area was December 1981, and I was very small, so I have no memory of being in an earthquake large enough to be felt. Now I have never been to that region of the world, so I can only haphazardly guess on how living conditions, plus geography and urban density are. Now as I remember, the quake was out in the ocean, but it was felt on land. I heard something along a 9.0 quake. From my limited knowledge of earthquakes, 9.0 strength quakes will still do some damage a few hundred miles away. So taking all of these factors in mind, how many people do you feel could have gotten far away fast enough before it hit? How far inland did the wave travel?

This idea of yours is a very noble thing, but in my opinion it is only that, an idea. The cost Vs practically ratio seems to be staggering. Does anyone feel that New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sydney, or even Tokyo could have evacuated a significant fraction of its population from the area given only 1-hour warning? How about two? The Empire of Cormi applauds your idea and willingness to offer solutions besides simply humanitarian aid. But alas, we cannot favorably vote on such an issue.

This is a great idea. I'll endorse it. Remember to send me a telegram when you post it.

This idea of yours is a very noble thing, but in my opinion it is only that, an idea. The cost Vs practically ratio seems to be staggering. Does anyone feel that New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sydney, or even Tokyo could have evacuated a significant fraction of its population from the area given only 1-hour warning? How about two? The Empire of Cormi applauds your idea and willingness to offer solutions besides simply humanitarian aid. But alas, we cannot favorably vote on such an issue.

Actually it can be a cost saving idea too.

I don't think your nation was a member of the UN when I discussed some of the basic theories behind risk adversion and the cost benefit of forecasting systems in relation to the Tracking Near Earth Objects, but I'll dig some of that up.

But you are also discounting other UN legislation, such as a possible building code. The first step however would be to still create a UN organization and team of experts to indentify areas at risk and what the body of knowledge suggests we know and need to know about whatever type of natural disasters. That is why I'm very much in favour of item 2 of the draft proposal (outline) above.

Though I'll be away next weekend, I'd like to offer to co-author a proposal ... I think in a few days I can have a working UN resolution (following the standard format) that would address your concerns of cost. :)

Based upon what I've read at both Yahoo! News and CNN.com:

I might have missed it, but do they have a time of day at which this happened?
The earthquake occurred at about 7:00 pm (0000 GMT) Saturday night, or about 7:00 am local time Sunday morning.

Well to answer your question Cormi, tidal waves move at 450 mph.

Based on the articles I've read online at both sites, tsunami can move at speeds of up to 600 mph in the deep ocean, but they slow down as they move into more shallow waters, and gain height; this particular moved at about 500 mph from the epicenter towards the coastlines of the Indian Ocean (even the tsunamis that reached Somalia, Tanzania and Kenya)!

Two additional factoids to consider. There is a tsunami warning system in place for the Pacific Ocean basin that was established as a result of tsunamis that struck Japan which followed the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. Some experts quoted in the articles I mentioned indicated that a warning system would not have helped the indunnuated areas that were closer to the epicenter (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand) but would have helped areas that were further away.

And yes, this is my first post at NationsStates.

Two additional factoids to consider. There is a tsunami warning system in place for the Pacific Ocean basin that was established as a result of tsunamis that struck Japan which followed the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. Some experts quoted in the articles I mentioned indicated that a warning system would not have helped the indunnuated areas that were closer to the epicenter (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand) but would have helped areas that were further away.

And yes, this is my first post at NationsStates.

Tomorrow I'll hunt around for some nice FAQ sites on this, but I've been glued to the television tonight watching the news.

And I've heard the same with respect to the Pacific warning system, but in this particular case there are currently 12,000 Sri Lankans alone that may have benefitted from such a system. Furthermore, there are 250,000 estimated Sir Lankans alone that are homeless.

The UN and the RL Red Cross are mobilizing, and I think it would be incredibly helpful for us to study the real world response as well. If this is not the appropriate place (it may be), then I'd like to recommend that the UNO (link in my signature) is a great place to talk about *just* the real world. It has much less traffic than General, where I had a hard time finding anything on the Tsunamis tonight. (Granted I only looked at the first two pages at the time ... but this is an important event.)

This idea of yours is a very noble thing, but in my opinion it is only that, an idea. The cost Vs practically ratio seems to be staggering. Does anyone feel that New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sydney, or even Tokyo could have evacuated a significant fraction of its population from the area given only 1-hour warning? How about two? The Empire of Cormi applauds your idea and willingness to offer solutions besides simply humanitarian aid. But alas, we cannot favorably vote on such an issue.

Well, the thing is this. It would cost a significant amount of money to establish such a system. But if you look at the end-costs... The tens of billions that it will cost to rebuild the coastal areas, the loss of THOUSANDS of human lives. They would (and in the real-life case of the Southeast Asia Tsunami, already have) far outweigh the cost of setting up such an internationl system in the first place.

As for the time. Yes, I agree that even at the maximum 4 hours, there wouldn't be much time to conduct an orderly evacuation. But in this real-life case, you had thousands of people, still out swimming in the ocean, playing and suntanning on the beach, COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that there was a tidal wave coming at them. Each second that we could buy with such a detection system would save countless lives.

Justa question, if any moderators are reading this. Any idea what category i should put it in? My best choices so far would be International Security (which SOUNDS right, but according to the definition, is more about increasing military/police power and budgets) or Social Justice, because it talks about increasing overall welfare. Neither one really fits though. Any suggestions?

Planning to post this up soon, maybe tomorrow. Any suggestions on things to be added/changed/removed?

Justa question, if any moderators are reading this. Any idea what category i should put it in? My best choices so far would be International Security (which SOUNDS right, but according to the definition, is more about increasing military/police power and budgets) or Social Justice, because it talks about increasing overall welfare. Neither one really fits though. Any suggestions?

Planning to post this up soon, maybe tomorrow. Any suggestions on things to be added/changed/removed?

I'd still like it if we did a rewrite to make this look more like a resolution format, and focus on the organizations ... (I'd have more, but between watching the news and taking advantage of ebay's $0.10 day today, I'm kinda spread thin).

In any event, I was thinking that if the resolution called upon nations to develope emergency response plans in the event of a tsunami warning and if the resolution urged national emergency response forces (including military and police) to aid all people reguardless of citizenship, we've killed two problems. We've managed to provide an "international" focus and also explain why International Security is appropriate.

I also suggest we add language similar to have I have in Tracking Near Earth Objects to stress that the increases in military budgets are specifically intended for funding of the new organization and for drafting and having emergency response plans in the ready.

FYI, not long ago a smaller event killed over 2,000 in Papa New Guinea according to the Australian Red Cross.

http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_312_3870,00.html

(I've been adding a few more articles to the United Nations Organization page when I feel they fit there.)

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #64
Tracking Near Earth Objects
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The General Assembly,

AWARE that existing international, national, and non-governmental research in the space sciences are continuously identifying Near Earth Objects (NEOs) including many asteroids and comets which have the potential to one day collide with the Earth,

OBSERVING that some of these space sciences programs are not specifically charged with identification and characterization of the hazards posed by NEOs,

RECOGNIZING that the risk of a NEO impact is shared by all nations on Earth, and thus is of international concern,

TAKING NOTE of the "Report of the Task Force on potentially hazardous Near Earth Objects",

NOTHING WITH APPROVAL the Planetary Defense Conference, held February 23-26, 2004,

CONCERNED that the funding of current space sciences projects and conferences is fairly limited,

BEARING IN MIND that adequate warning time is a requirement for any space or terrestrial based response, ranging from mass evacuation to impact avoidance,

NOTING WITH CONCERN that few formal management plans for dealing with potential impacts exist,

APPROVING of the use of hazard assessment scales, such as the Torino Impact Scale, as a means of weighing the risk of impact with the consequences of an impact,

1. ENCOURAGES all nations, United Nations members and non-members, to share any information on the trajectories of any Near Earth Objects (NEOs);

2. FURTHER ENCOURAGES United Nations members to seek agreements with non-member states to share any information related to NEOs;

3. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that nations will continue to identify and characterize the hazard associated with potential NEO impacts;

4. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS the continuation of pre-existing international, national, and non-governmental research in the space sciences (which are considered to be included in military budgets for the purposes of NationStates); and

5. RECOMMENDS that international, national, and non-governmental space science research groups continue to research and develop possible contingency plans should an impact be likely.

Votes For: 12,351
Votes Against: 3,273
Implemented: Mon Jul 5 2004

I feel like I'm rushing things a bit, but I wanted to show what I have in mind ...

The bold faced sections of the Tracking Near Earth Objects proposal can be easily recrafted, because Tsunami Warning systems really are essentially the same organizational response as planetary warning systems, both fields are based in the science of disaster prevention and mitigation.

Here is what I'd like to suggest be used as a draft preamble ...

Early Tsunami Warning System
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Tejasdom

Description:
The General Assembly,

AWARE of the danger to life and property that tsunamis pose to low-lying coastal nations and communities;

OBSERVING that many low-lying coastal communities also serve as resorts and holiday retreats, thus placing greater burdens (such as providing interpetation services and establishing contact with family and friends) on these communities in times of crisis;

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens";

CONVINCED that an international tsunami early warning system could prevent the loss of life;

CONCERNED that the day to day operation and maintance of an international tsunami early warning system might take away from the IRCO's ability to serve as a disaster response organization, and not a disaster prevention organization;

1. CALLS UPON member and non-member states to offer humanitarian disaster assistance in the event of a tsunami;

2. AUTHORIZES the IRCO to ...

3. ESTABLISHES a United Nations Maritime Organization (UNMO) to be responsible for the maintance and coordination of domestic and international tsunami early warning systems ...

Well, here is what i think i'm going to put up there. Just not personally a fan of using those preambulatory and operative clause words. To me they sorta confuse things a bit more.

Mikitivity, #1 in your proposal sounds like a good and common-sense idea, but i don't really want to get into a situation where they are "obligated" or "forced" to give humanitarian aid. There are other factors and exceptions (such as, if a nation in itself is in economical trouble and really doesn't have anything to spare) In any case, I'm sure that most nations with adequate resources would be more than willing to provide aid to affected countries and people.

And in any case, my plan for this proposal was more about taking the precaution to limit loss of human life and property than what to do afterward. I'm just planning this proposal for establishing a buoy system that will detect a coming tidal wave, and a monitoring center that will issue warnings and advisories. You're more than welcome to write a proposal of your own for procedures and direction after a disaster, though. I just feel like it'd sorta be expanding the role of what i planned the warning center to be more than what i planned. (Same reason why i'm not going with the Maritime name... makes it sound like a really general and big organization controlling ALL ocean activities... but if you want to write up a proposal for the United Nations Martime Organization, and then include the Tsunami Emergency Warning Center into it in a later proposal, you're more than welcome to)

I did add in a part about the IRCO, though.

-----------

Title: International Ocean Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Warning
Category: International Security

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly hereby proposes an international network of buoys that would provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal regions.

Especially in many poorer regions, nations lack the funds to construct and maintain a buoy system in their waters. As such, when large tidal waves approach their coast, they have no warning whatsoever, and can not take the necessary precautions to prevent the loss of life and property. Many times, the people of these nations do not even know that a tidal wave is approaching until it is within site from the coast or has already hit, resulting in the needless loss of thousands of human lives, as well as large property damage.

The NationStates United Nations proposes that:

1. Buoy Network
A network of buoys shall be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the coast, as space permits. (Smaller gulfs, for example, would only be able to accompany about 800 km, while larger expanses of oceans would have buoys set at 800, 1600, and 3200 km perimeters.) These would give advance warnings of approxamitely* 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours to nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave.

*Based on an average tidal wave speed of 800 ki/hr (497 mi/hr)

These buoys will be established in areas of tectonic plate activity (Typically areas where volcanoes and earthquakes are prevalent.), as those are the only areas in which large, destructive tidal waves actually occur, and will be built in collaboration with the pre-existing buoy systems of other nations.

2. Tsunami Emergency Warning Center
The NationStates United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) be established. A team of oceanographers will be kept at the center at all times to continuously monitor data from the buoys. In the case of a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will issue a warning advisory and send ocean current data to the nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave. The national governments can then evacuate its citizens and take precautions as they see fit. Additionally, a alertwill be sent out to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), to prepare an emergency response team to be at the ready in the case of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, to send a response team to coastal areas to assist in evacuation and safety plans.

Additionally, if nations choose to establish or have already established their own Ocean Monitoring or Emergency Warning centers, data from the buoys will be freely available to them for download and monitoring at any time.

3. Coastal Receiver/Satellite Network
A network of coastal receivers be established and maintained on coastal nations to monitor the nearer buoys, and a network of satellites be deployed and maintained in orbit to monitor the farther ocean buoys. These coastal land receivers and satellites will constantly monitor data transmitted from the buoys, and send them to the Tsunami Early Warning Center mentioned above.

The initial funds to create the system shall be contributed to by ALL member nations, as a massive tsunami disaster would have far-reaching effects on ALL nations, not simply coastal ones. However, after the initial creation of items 1, 2, and 3, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on the coastal nations.

Can I offer a few comments and observations?

First, the resolution should encourage member states that have already established monitoring and warning systems and mechanisms to contribute the use and expansion of existing systems as part of the mechanism.

Second, the resolution should offer to provide such technical assistance as may be appropriate to assist member state to plan and implement the mass communication of expeditious warnings to local populations, as well as the standardarization of the warning protocols and procedures. This is similar to the standardized warnings used through the World Meterological Organization for tropical cylcones in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. One of the problems I reading about is how to educate local populations about the significance of the warnings when issued, what response would be required to the issuance of such warnings by local populations, and a standard format for such warning. Obviously, the resolution can't state these details, but the resolution can declare that these are the onbkectives of an effective monitoring and warning system. The other thing to consider is illustrated by a interesting simulation I;ve seen broadcast on CNN from the NOAA of the US (which showed the location of the underground earthquake and the wace front as it went from the epicenter outwards, including all the way to Africa. From what I've gathered from the comments (the original computer animation of satellite observations has been airing since early Sunday in the US) the analysis of satellite observations also plays a role in the monitoring and warning process.

First, the resolution should encourage member states that have already established monitoring and warning systems and mechanisms to contribute the use and expansion of existing systems as part of the mechanism.

Yeah, i put that in with the buoy system "collaborating with pre-existing buoy systems." And that in addition to the international Tsunami Emergency Warning Center, nations who have monitoring centers of their own will have full access to data from the buoys.

I like the idea about educating nations about what to do in such a situation, and even helping them to train. However, I'd think it would work even better as an expansion to the duties of the International Red Cross, or the establishment of, as Mikitivity suggested, an organization that would directly respond to and aid the nations. The Tsunami Emergency Warning Center is basically just as its name suggests, a center to warn of potential or incoming tsunami tidal waves. Keeping it simple, so that costs for the project isn't so high and there's not that much complexity. (A dozen or so oceanographers in a lab analyzing data, vs. the cost of employing a several-hundred strong on-the-ready task force)

------

Title: International Ocean Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Warning
Category: International Security

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly hereby proposes an international network of buoys that would provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal regions.

Especially in many poorer regions, nations lack the funds to construct and maintain a buoy system in their waters. As such, when large tidal waves approach their coast, they have no warning whatsoever, and can not take the necessary precautions to prevent the loss of life and property. Many times, the people of these nations do not even know that a tidal wave is approaching until it is within site from the coast or has already hit, resulting in the needless loss of thousands of human lives, as well as large property damage.

The NationStates United Nations proposes that:

1. Buoy Network
A network of buoys shall be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the coast, as space permits. (Smaller gulfs, for example, would only be able to accompany about 800 km, while larger expanses of oceans would have buoys set at 800, 1600, and 3200 km perimeters.) These would give advance warnings of approxamitely* 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours to nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave.

*Based on an average tidal wave speed of 800 ki/hr (497 mi/hr)

These buoys will be established in areas of tectonic plate activity (Typically areas where volcanoes and earthquakes are prevalent.), as those are the only areas in which large, destructive tidal waves actually occur, and will be built in collaboration with the pre-existing buoy systems of other nations.

2. Tsunami Emergency Warning Center
The NationStates United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) be established. A team of oceanographers will be kept at the center at all times to continuously monitor data from the buoys. In the case of a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will...

2.1: Issue a warning advisory and send ocean current data to all nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave. The national governments can then evacuate its citizens and take precautions as they see fit.
2.2 Send out an alert will to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), to prepare an emergency response team to be at the ready in the case of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, to send a response team to coastal areas to assist in evacuation and safety plans.

Additionally, if nations choose to establish or have already established their own Ocean Monitoring or Emergency Warning centers, they will have full access to the data from the buoys for download and monitoring at any time.

3. Coastal Receiver/Satellite Network
A network of coastal receivers be established and maintained on coastal nations to monitor the nearer buoys, and a network of satellites be deployed and maintained in orbit to monitor the farther ocean buoys. These coastal land receivers and satellites will constantly monitor data transmitted from the buoys, and send them to the Tsunami Early Warning Center mentioned above.

The initial funds to create the system shall be contributed to by ALL member nations, as a massive tsunami disaster would have far-reaching effects on ALL nations, not simply coastal ones. However, after the initial creation of items 1, 2, and 3, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on the coastal nations.

Rawr here's the final thing. Had to split it into 2 because there's a word limit. I put in a recommendation for an international convention to decide upon the procedures and standard warning protocols... If you guys want to draft a proposal for the specifics of that convention, i guess that would be the place for defining the protocols and establishing a taskforce. Well alrighty then.

-----
Title: Tsunami Warning System, Parts 1 & 2
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Description: International Ocean Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Detection and Warning

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly hereby proposes an international network of buoys that would provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal regions.

Especially in many poorer regions, nations lack the funds to construct and maintain a buoy system in their waters. As such, when large tidal waves approach their coast, they have no warning whatsoever, and can not take the necessary precautions to prevent the loss of life and property. Many times, the people of these nations do not even know that a tidal wave is approaching until it is within site from the coast or has already hit, resulting in the needless loss of thousands of human lives, as well as large property damage.

The NationStates United Nations proposes that:

1. Buoy Network
A network of buoys shall be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the coast, as space permits. (Smaller gulfs, for example, would only be able to accompany about 800 km, while larger expanses of oceans would have buoys set at 800, 1600, and 3200 km perimeters.) These would give advance warnings of approximately* 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours to nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave.

*Based on an average tidal wave speed of 800 ki/hr (497 mi/hr), obtained from studies done by oceanographers.

These buoys will be established in areas of tectonic plate activity (Typically areas where volcanoes and earthquakes are prevalent.), as those are the only areas in which large, destructive tidal waves actually occur, and will be built in collaboration with the pre-existing buoy systems of other nations.

2. Tsunami Emergency Warning Center
The NationStates United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) be established. A team of oceanographers will be kept at the center at all times to continuously monitor data from the buoys. In the case of a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will...

2.1: Issue a warning advisory and send ocean current data to all nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave. The national governments can then evacuate its citizens and take precautions as they see fit.
2.2: Send out an alert will to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), to prepare an emergency response team to be at the ready in the case of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, to send a response team to coastal areas to assist in evacuation and safety plans.

Additionally, if nations choose to establish or have already established their own Ocean Monitoring or Emergency Warning centers, they will have full access to the data from the buoys for download and monitoring at any time.

3. Coastal Receiver/Satellite Network
A network of coastal receivers be established and maintained on coastal nations to monitor the nearer buoys, and a network of satellites be deployed and maintained in orbit to monitor the farther ocean buoys. These coastal land receivers and satellites will constantly monitor data transmitted from the buoys, and send them to the Tsunami Early Warning Center mentioned above.

The initial funds to create the system shall be contributed to by ALL member nations, as a massive tsunami disaster would have far-reaching effects on ALL nations, not simply coastal ones. However, after the initial creation of items 1, 2, and 3, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on the coastal nations.

Additionally, the United Nations proposes that an international convention of coastal nations be convened to establish standard international warning protocols and help all coastal nations at risk of tidal wave disasters develop and train for a tidal wave response procedure.

Proposal by the Dominion of Tejasdom, with contributions by the Confederated City States of Mikitivity and the Federation of Grosseschnauzer.

I only see one minor error for correction.

"In the case of an (Replace "an" with "a"; "an" proceeds words beginning with a vowel) possible or imminent disaster..."

We feel deeply affected by the recent events which have taken so many lives... Therefore we would like to see a resolution that fully concentrates on the prevention of the loss of so many lives...

There is something I would like to bring forth, instead of building this up from scratch, I suggest we take a look at what we already have... For instance: if we can link the buoys to our global positioning satellite, we do not have to spend billions of dollars on a new satellite and launching it into space... also, some shore regions are hard to reach by land, the question is if you can get there in time... In the Netherlands they have alarm poles for if a fire brakes loose or another disaster happens, these warning poles make a really loud noise, impossible to miss... these poles are relatively cheap and can be manufactured and placed along shores with the money you save from developing the satellites... off course it would be unlogical to place them along all shores in the world, but the ones closest to tectonic activity will be the first shores helped with this, and the rest follows in decending order of most tectonic activity...

Moving on: it would be a great help to increase the size of the Red Cross, it can save MANY lives... also the funding for so called 'on the spot' help should be increased, many people don't have enough time to be transported to a hospital, and if a person does not have to be brought to the hospital in order for that person's life to be saved, the efficiency of Red Cross volunteers can be increased because the don't have to drive up-and-down to the hospital, but is able to work on the spot... it's a win-win condition...

Also the reconstruction of villages and establishment should be increased to prevent long-term damage, I know this damage will be there anyway, but wouldn't it be nice to try and reduce that damage...

And it might sound very strange, but why not give inhabitants swimming lessons? A lot of people could be saved with simple swimming lessons, also the people already in the water can be saved by those who can swim, because they will get swimming lessons they will also learn how to save people in the water... again a win-win condition, especially for the countries that do not have the financial capability of establishing something like this...

I hope this helps you in any way, I am online every day to help if necessary, but I do live in the netherlands, so time differences can be quite big...

undefined

the goverment of the 12 tribes endorces any early warning system,and contibute to its funding for the south pacific region,also i wish to set up a alert system for mutal disaster relief fund for the entire pacific rim nations,and have prepostioned equipment availble on board ships and aircraft
12 tribes will mobalise its armed forces for disater and humanitarin relief duties,IF the UN authorises its use..12 tribes medical faciltys and hospital are on emergency call ansa system 24 /7 /366 days of year

OOC: My understanding is that they had satellite imagery and were able to monitor the progress of the wave but the one small problem was.. who do you call? They don't have a magic number you can call for most of these nations that were affected to tell someone.. "hey, head for high ground or you are fvcked buddy." On another note, when they asked some of these asshats in the government of said nations, they mentioned they were aware of the danger but it just costs too much to have the early warning and detection equipment in place. Niiiiice.

OOC: My understanding is that they had satellite imagery and were able to monitor the progress of the wave but the one small problem was.. who do you call? They don't have a magic number you can call for most of these nations that were affected to tell someone.. "hey, head for high ground or you are fvcked buddy." On another note, when they asked some of these asshats in the government of said nations, they mentioned they were aware of the danger but it just costs too much to have the early warning and detection equipment in place. Niiiiice.

OOC:
This is a very relevant issue actually.

With the death toll now at 44,000 (source: todays SacBee online) and rising, I think the excuse it "costs too much" really doesn't cut it.

What is more concerning is that global population growth estimates would suggest that future events, if nothing else changes, would have even higher death tolls.

Warning is part of a prevention / mitigation system. Better building codes and having national emergency plans (i.e. knowing who to call to send out the warning) and finally educational awareness programs are all critical elements of prevention. Another prevention or risk advoidance measure along the lines of building codes would be to also incorporate zoning, but again, with populations booming this is unlikely IMHO to really be a desirable idea.

The American Red Cross has an excellent FAQ on tsunamis in general, and NOAA has added tons of links to many basic to expert level discussions on how the US prepares for tsunamis.

IC:
But now that Tejasdom has submitted some proposals, I also think it appropriate for us to begin talking about this in terms of NS too! :)

For example, Mikitivity is a landlocked nation ... a mountain nation. And even though tsunamis pose no direct threat to my nation, Mikitivity's citizens to like to vacation at beach resorts. Whos responsibility are these people? My government firmly believes we share in the responsibility to protect our citizens, and feel that UN action is a way to set safe standards ... furthermore, we understand that with UN projects comes a price tag. My government has long been one of the most outspoken UN members in favour of international disaster prevention, and would like to recommend that nations voice their opinions on what they feel the appropriate role for the international community is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

For Animation of the Tsunami:
http://staff.aist.go.jp/kenji.satake/animation.gif

Upon further consultation, the Emperor of Cormi, has decreed that Cormi shall partake in any means neccisary to prevent such an disaster again. The Empire of Cormi shall install and maintain a series of early warning sirens, paid for by the government of Cormi. The Empress of Cormi herself stated that although no plan is 100% foolproof, having a warning of some kind is better than no warning at all.

Interesting link.

For those interested in a link to Tejasdom's proposals try:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/41754/page=UN_proposal/start=42

Hrm, thanks for all the support guys.

All the ideas about prevention, like beach warning sirens, having each nation to establish their own evacuation teams and plans, and yes, even swimming lessons, sound really great. Shall we get to work drafting a second proposal about the specifics of all of these?

Riversland fully supports this proposal.

Dzjennick volunteers to participate in the building of this resolution... we strongly believe that this is a very delicate, yet important issue which has to be discussed, Tomorrow I will become UN delegate of my region, but unfortunetely, my birthday is also tomorrow... anyway, our region fully endorses any good proposal that comes forth out of this thread...

The two-part proposal which Grosseschnauzer was privileged to assist in development, requires a significant number of further endorsements in order to be placed for a vote.

Grosseschnauzer is committed to actions which are intended to protect lives and property. In the event the current proposals do not receive sufficient endorsements in time, then that would be the occaision to see if editing or redrafting of the proposal would be appropriate before the proposal would be re-submitted.

(As far as the RL death toll, its now over 80,000 and in all honesty, it would be surprising if the death toll alone does not reach six figures (100,000 plus). )

I realise this is not exactly connected to this, but could we not move people away from the coast as well? Or build better defences against the sea?

TilEnca has one coast line, and while there are ports and businesses down there, no one lives on it. They all live inland and the government provides transport to and from the businesses and ports so that no one need live near such a dangerous area. I realise there are still risks - people at work would be injured/killed - but it stops entire families and homes being washed away.

Just a thought.

Ecopoeia fully supports attempts to mitigate the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes and tsunami. Ecopoeia is an archipelago lying close to a tectonic plate boundary; we are consequently gratified to witness the concern shown by the nations that have contributed to the debate thus far.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

OOC: I'm not sure what exactly is the best response to a horrific event like this. Us lucky westerners are pretty much limited to sending money to good organisations in the hope that this will make a difference. I'd be interested in any other legislative work that we could put through the UN, possibly concerning aid provision or coastal defences. It may help many of us learn more about these issues. In the meantime, in the real world... I don't know. I'm a bit shocked and overawed by events.

Well, the moving of residential zones away from coastal areas is a good recommendation. I don't know about REQUIRING it, as island nations or densely packed ones really have no choice but to use every piece of land availabe, including coastal ones. Maybe mandating that coastal homes (and all buildings, even) must be built X meters above sea level, and like they have in Amsterdam, maybe building "Sea Walls" that are basically like a dam to block out the ocean.

Hrrmm well it looks like it might not go through this first time around. So in that case, i believe that i'll follow up on all of your suggestions to condense it and put it so that it will fit into one proposal. I guess I'd have to leave out the last bit about a convention to determine standards. We'll write up a second and seperate proposal to do that, i guess.

This is crazy talk!

A tsunami can be only a few centimeters high until it reaches the shallows leading up to land. A huge network of buoys is ridiculous.

The earth (I won't speculate about other planets) already has an extensive network of sensors monitoring for earthquakes, the causes of tsunamis. What's needed is a way of identifying coastal earthquakes likely to causes tsunamis and alert governments to the potential that their coastlines will be hit by a tsunami. National governments then need to have emergency broadcast systems to warn and evacuate residents of the at-risk areas.

This solution would have provided hours of response time to Sri Lanka, India, and Somalia (if you believe Somalia really was hit). For the people of Aceh and Thailand, the only way to prevent the deaths would have been to predict the earthquake itself.

Well, the moving of residential zones away from coastal areas is a good recommendation. I don't know about REQUIRING it, as island nations or densely packed ones really have no choice but to use every piece of land availabe, including coastal ones. Maybe mandating that coastal homes (and all buildings, even) must be built X meters above sea level, and like they have in Amsterdam, maybe building "Sea Walls" that are basically like a dam to block out the ocean.

Hrrmm well it looks like it might not go through this first time around. So in that case, i believe that i'll follow up on all of your suggestions to condense it and put it so that it will fit into one proposal. I guess I'd have to leave out the last bit about a convention to determine standards. We'll write up a second and seperate proposal to do that, i guess.
???
In what dream world would it be possible to move residential areas away from the coast?

Look around the earth - people like living next to water. They not only like living there, they get huge economic benefits from living there.

Look at any country in the real world, and tell us where land on the coast is worth less than land in the mountains. Show us any country with coastline that doesn't have a majority of the population living near the coast.

I'm posting useful real world articles on the United Nations Organizations page, and commenting on them.

I feel this article is a great starting point for a discussion:
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=37

If they had tidal gauges and a tsunami warning system, many people who died would have been saved," said Waverly Person, director of the U.S. Geological Survey national earthquake information service in Golden, Colo.


CNN, the Red Cross (International, US, and Australia have been great), and NOAA are all worth checking out. NOAA in particular has a great quicktime animation showing the wave and its travel based on satellite imagry. They also talk about the Pacific Buoy system.


Is international cooperation possible? Yes.

An international warning system in the Pacific was started in 1965, the year after tsunamis associated with a magnitude 9.2 quake struck Alaska. It is administered by the U.S-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Member states include all the major Pacific rim nations in North America, Asia and South America, as well as the Pacific islands, Australia and New Zealand.


Is it 100% effective? No.

Phil McFadden, chief scientist with the government-funded Geoscience Australia, said places close to the epicenter of the earthquake would have been hit so quickly that any warning would have come too late.


As I said, it is a fair article and presents both sides. It also is rich with links. In any event, anybody interested in this subject should really read this article, as I felt it important enough to mirror here -- but I hope to get more detailed discussions going off-site where they are less likely to attract the attention of trolls. :(

This is crazy talk!

A tsunami can be only a few centimeters high until it reaches the shallows leading up to land. A huge network of buoys is ridiculous.

The earth (I won't speculate about other planets) already has an extensive network of sensors monitoring for earthquakes, the causes of tsunamis.

But you seem willing to speculate about Earth ...
Let's actually look at what we do know!

From the United States National Oceanic and Atompsheric Administration (NOAA):

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag153.htm


How DART Buoys Work
The DART systems consist of a network of six anchored sea floor bottom pressure recorders and companion moored surface buoys for real-time communications. The buoy's sea floor sensor detects pressure changes caused by an earthquake (or other disturbance) and transmits that data via an acoustic link to the surface buoy. The data are then relayed via a NOAA GOES satellite link to ground stations, which prepare the signals for immediate dissemination to the NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers, the National Data Buoy Center and Pacific Marine Environmental Lab.

NOAA geophysicists use the data to determine the size of the wave, what areas may be at risk, and if a watch or warning is necessary. The DART research experience over the last 10 years indicates that these real-time systems are capable of detecting deep ocean tsunamis with amplitudes as small as one cm. (Click NOAA image to the right for a larger diagram showing how DART buoy works.)


In addition to reading what the United States has already done, I believe it is worthwhile in reading what the United States was planning to continue doing prior to this disaster ...


Future of DART
When the program is completed in 2011, NOAA hopes to have expanded the DART network to a total of 20 sensors. NOAA is also using the DART data to develop inundation models and evacuation maps, which show how far inland tsunami flooding may reach (and possibly how fast the flow of water might be and how long the inundation will last) for the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii. DART is consistent with the other in situ Earth observing technology that is being used to establish a Global Observing System and is essential to fulfilling NOAA's national responsibility for tsunami hazard mitigation and warnings.

puts their foot in their mouth by claiming that a bouy system would be unbelievably expensive by today's real world standards, let's look at what NOAA is currently paying:

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/itic/tsunami_events/media/factsheets/tsunami_detection_buoy_article.pdf

According to this pdf, the cost of a DART buoy is ~US$250,000 up front and US$125,000 / year + 20 days / year of ship time for maintance. This site also talks about total funding, and I believe they are quoting a price tag of about US$6.2 million for the past decade. But this was a bit unclear and a point that IRL I'd ask for clarification, because 6.2 million seems more like what the operating expenses for 5 years would be! :)

6 x 0.125 Mil = 0.75 Mil / year for the buoys ... anyway, let's continue:

NOAA currently operates 6 buoys, and has plans to purchase and operate 4 more. The trade off in costs is summarized in the article in that a larger network has a faster response time to changes in the tides.

Buoy #7 is currently green lighted and is a cooperative effort with Chile (perhaps a model for more international cooperation).

This isn't the normal godmoding or techwanking type of fantasy that characterizes many NationState's debates. What is different about this proposal and what is happening in the real world is that instead of pursuing this network via bilateral arrangements (largely at the insistence of the United States), we'd be only asking the governments of NationStates UN to actually vote on the idea of having everybody work together.

A secondary benefit of international collaboration via a central authority on a buoy based system is that DART has actually been proven to prevent false alarms like the one issued in India yesterday. (The article talks about DART preventing false alarms.)

Remember, that there is a cost to evacuation. Evacuation is not prevention of all losses, but better described as mitigation -- i.e. a reduction or offset of losses. Property is still at risk, and always will be (but it too can be protected via structural / coastal engineering).


To get a bit technical, the basic way buoy systems operate is they take normal tidal signals (which are largely based on astronomical and meterological forcings -- both of which are very well understood) and look at differences between modeled forecasts and real-time observations. By subtracting what you know and what you don't know you are left with a "residual". The residual allows you to see sudden changes, so you know when there is a non-tidal wave moving through the area of the buoy.
:)

I'll hold myself corrected, but with the observation that DART is primarily used to negate a tsunami alert after an observed earthquake. Earthquake monitoring is still the primary detection system.

The only cost issue I see is we are dealing with a case that, due to the number of nations and way UN nations are spread, we may be talking upwards of 27-40 times the cost of the real world version.

Now, how much is that totally? 30 million a year at most. Most nations waste more than that.

So, really, cost is not an issue when you examine it.

I'll hold myself corrected, but with the observation that DART is primarily used to negate a tsunami alert after an observed earthquake. Earthquake monitoring is still the primary detection system.

OOC: In real life, we can gather most of the information for mid to long distances from an earthquake monitoring system and communicating with "ground zero" sites. But having the ability to screen out false positives is of tremendous value.

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag153.htm
(same article as before)

The value of DART was evident on Nov. 17, 2003, (just a month after the system was transferred from research to operational mode), when a tsunami warning was cancelled because real-time DART data showed that the tsunami would not be damaging. Canceling this warning averted an evacuation in Hawaii, saving the state an estimated $68 million in lost productivity.

I know you read this, but I really wanted to highlight this for others to read.

It is important to actually note what the causes of tsunamis are, and again, I'd like to point to the article:


A tsunami is a series of waves generated by any rapid large-scale disturbance of sea water. Most tsunamis are generated by coastal or oceanic earthquakes, but they can also be caused by volcanic eruptions, landslides or meteor impacts.

In a very real sense, tsunamis are physical responses to other natural disasters, and the advantage of the buoy system isn't that it is the only way to warn people of danger, but it is based on the principal of looking at that tidal residual and thus is an independant measure from other events. It can crudely be described as a direct measure of "water that shouldn't be there" -- and we have a good understanding of what that water might do.


About costs ... I outlined just the costs for the DART program. Bear in mind that the buoy's are making use of satellites that are already paid for and are also piggy backing on those class I boats for 20 days.

DART is also just the observation program, and does not include the costs of issuing warnings. I don't have data for that yet.

If people can make a strong case that the system would cost too much, I'd suggest that the resolution actually be geared towards endorsing an international cost - benefit analysis as a first step. However, I'm optimistic (something many of my engineering peers don't share) that the benefit is a function that will grow with time. Basically many of my peers seem to think that the Earth's population growth rate will slow down ... but we all will admit that we just don't know what will really happen.

In any event, I think the costs will be low in NationStates ... even if we assume a "real world" level of technology <--- no Harry Potter, no Darth Vader, if we can assume that some of the other systems already exist and if the nations controlling those systems are OK with sharing some of that information.

For example, would Hirota be willing to share their satellites? Would Thel D'Ran still pass along ocean data? Would Mikitivity still continue to transmit lunar position data? I think so.

Hrrmm well it looks like it might not go through this first time around. So in that case, i believe that i'll follow up on all of your suggestions to condense it and put it so that it will fit into one proposal. I guess I'd have to leave out the last bit about a convention to determine standards. We'll write up a second and seperate proposal to do that, i guess.

I think there is a way to draft all of it in one proposal if the initial proposals fall short of sufficient endorsements and it has to be resubmitted. In that event, feel free to ask for drafting assistance via telegram.

I fear the proposal was swept away with the update. It had much support before it left though, including these delegates approving it (the first one):


Approvals: 93 (Tejasdom, Duplek, Docekaheedron, Real Sylvania, JS Nijmegen, Metal Poets, Yafor 2, Miraflores, Pilot, Dominicalius, Dafidutopia, New Larson, La Commune Quebecoise, Squirrelmania, WZ Forums, Tallylandia, DougIsGodLand, Thatlandia, Bradley Latham, Yelda, SovietRepublicofRussia, Groot Gouda, Riversland, Mescania, Jebusan, Alatun, Guardom, Astriana, Julio Trigman, Ossaca, North Central America, United Land of Liberty, Czech Minutemen, Andorista, Mikeswill, The Dancing Butterfly, Steenia, Doyel, Watari, Baribeau, Anaximanderin, Saqqara, Eridanus, Wezep, Morrissette, Cheer and Love, Ataraxics, ---Narnia, Korudhrim, Hellieville, Butang, Staunch, Justifiable Genocide, Jebusmt, Wolfenlands, The Derrak Quadrant, Palteau, Danitoria, Easy-Going, Atlantic Districts, Patrick6h, DragonSpeartopia, Perchance, Certifiable Psychos, Catanacia, BearNation, Tuonela, Master Tom, Immortallia, Euston, Nethala, Hockey Fandom, War Child, Squallas, Pimps Have Seven Lives, Orlia, Information Traders, Tekania, New Cyberia, Novus Terra Reborn, East Sibir, PintoBerg, Anjali, The Enterprise D, Natashagrad, LouFerringoland, Cameleo, Mettatron, Nazi Aurelia, Flaime, Tomzilla, Soft Meeps, Oniram)

I suggest Tejasdom resubmit soon, telegram these delegates, and continue to expand its support through further campaigns. It'll make it through, it just needs another chance. And be careful to submit it later in the day.

Good Luck!

Heh - this is similar to my proposal that I suggested a month or so ago, and I'm glad that more people are listening this time!

It has my support.

I fear the proposal was swept away with the update. It had much support before it left though, including these delegates approving it (the first one):



I suggest Tejasdom resubmit soon, telegram these delegates, and continue to expand its support through further campaigns. It'll make it through, it just needs another chance. And be careful to submit it later in the day.

Good Luck!

Thanks for posting that list! I knew there was something I forgot to grab late last night.

If it isn't submitted immediately we can still work on it by giving Tejasdom some suggestions. Groot Gouda and I have been talking about this in the International Democratic Union forum:

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=177

Basically we both like the proposal and our support can be counted upon ... however, I believe we both would like to avoid setting this up as a two-part proposal. At least at first.

My advice would be to set this up as a stand alone resolution, but to acknowledge in the last line or so of the text that this is not the only solution and to:

11. ENCOURAGES additional efforts to prevent and / or mitigate the losses due to natural disasters.

(I know, I'm again pushing that UN format, but I really think short sentences like this make debate and analysis easy.)

There are IMHO two tracks to take here (I'll use my old resolutions as examples). There is the "Hey, let's work together and share information" approach, which was the real basis of "Tracking Near Earth Objects". Then there is the, "We need to centralize all our efforts and be prepared to offer humanitarian assistance" which I was trying to capture in "Good Samaritan Laws" and which Hui Bei did a really great job with "Epidemic Prevention Protocol".

I'd recommend Tejasdom pursue just one approach for now ... for example, focus on the buoys, add more information about communication networks between countries and tectonic information (which is what a few nations have brought up), and ignore the humanitarian aid issue for now. We'll get to that later ... besides, NationStates is beginning to have an active RPed International Red Cross:

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=6

(I'd love to see a few more nations sign on to the Red Cross, as I've see it referenced in Roleplay events on II before.)

I'd suggest that Tejasdom include earthquake monitoring, or even make it the primary focus of the resolution. From what I read about DART, the buoys are a great enhancement to an earthquake monitoring network, but I saw nothing to indicate they could work independently of one.

I think the resolution should also require governments to set up public alert broadcasting systems in areas deemed to be high risk - the problem with the tsunamis on Sunday wasn't that scientists couldn't predict they might happen, but that there was no protocol in place to warn the governments of india and sri lanka so they could evacuate the beaches for a few hours.

I think the resolution should also require governments to set up public alert broadcasting systems in areas deemed to be high risk - the problem with the tsunamis on Sunday wasn't that scientists couldn't predict they might happen, but that there was no protocol in place to warn the governments of india and sri lanka so they could evacuate the beaches for a few hours.

This is going to sound brutally cruel, but those governments were asked in the 1990s to join the Pacific Tsunami system by the United States and the US was politely told that it wasn't worth the cost. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/26/tsunami.timeline.ap/index.html

One of those articles I linked to yesterday had a timeline of significant "recorded" tsunamis, and the Dec. 26, 2004 tsunami really stands apart from the others. While in real life there will be an Indian Ocean network built (Japan and the US have always been pushing for this for information purposes alone), the larger real life question is will these governments really be willing much less capable of maintaining and properly using a network?

The Thai resorts that were full of Swedes will likely have a warning system similar to HI's, but Indonesia and Sri Lanka are poor governments that are best characterized by having at times a lack of interest in some regions. With that in mind, just pushing the responsibility back to a local government might not help "as much" as pulling a few additional chairs up to the "prevention table". The reason I say the Thai resorts will get their systems is that given the number of Swedes and other Europeans there, I'm guessing that those resorts are partially owned by European capitalists / investors, whom will now want to enhance the public safety image of their resorts.

I'm not yet convinced that the DART isn't a good system on its own though (your other point). For example, I just don't know if a landslide can be picked up as an earthquake or not. Earthquakes are characterized by different types of waves ... if memory serves S-waves and P-waves (there may be others) that literally travel through the Earth similar to how we think of waves moving across water. The earthquake was likely first detected in Australia, which then transmitted just the sesmic information to Hawaii's Pacific Tsumani Warning Center. Hawaii then issued a warning to the Pacific nations participating in the program.

Up to this point, everything was based on the idea / theory that a 8.5 (later to be upgraded) earthquake may have caused a tsunami. This is just a warning.

Hours later as reports from the nations hit came, the tsunami was realized or "confirmed". CNN reports that after the shock and devastation, that Sri Lanka then asked the US to contact it in the event of aftershocks.

I think the take home messages are:

- The sesmic guess this time was right.
- The institutional agreements between nations were what broke down.

Questions:

- Why weren't the Indian Ocean nations also watching for earthquakes?
- Would a buoy system have helped to develop an institutional system that would be capable of making a timely warning?


That said, my opinion is that we need several things:

- Buoys (for landslides and non-sesmic based events)
- Stronger Bi-Lateral or Uni-Lateral Agreements for Info & Warnings
- Sesmic Information Networks
- Quicker Response Time Humanitarian Aid (a possibility)

Theoretically I could see a series of 4 resolutions being designed to address each of the above points separately. That said, I'm here defending the idea and science behind Tejasdom's resolution. It isn't meant to be the only solution, but it is an important part (in fact, I firmly believe it forces the agreements between nations better than even sesmic networks will).

Groot has created a draft to address the Sesmic needs, but pointed out that this is Tejasdom's idea and that we (the International Democratic Union) does not want to step on anybody's toes ... we are here to just help. :)

Okay... here's the new proposal... condensed. Thanks to Grosseschnauzer for the help. About to submit it, hopefully it goes through this time,

Title: Tsunami Warning System
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Description: International Ocean Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Detection and Warning

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly hereby proposes an international network of buoys that would provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal regions.

Especially in many poorer regions, nations lack the funds to construct and maintain a buoy system in their waters. As such, when large tidal waves approach their coast, they have no warning whatsoever, and can not take the necessary precautions to prevent the excessive loss of life and property.

The United Nations proposes that:

1. Buoy Network
A network of buoys shall be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the coast, as space permits. These would give advance warnings of approximately* 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours to nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave.

*Based on an average tidal wave speed of 800 ki/hr (497 mi/hr)

These buoys will be established in areas of volcanic or tectonic plate activity, as those are the only areas in which large, destructive tidal waves actually occur, and will be built in collaboration with the pre-existing buoy systems of other nations.

2. Tsunami Emergency Warning Center
The United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) be established. A team of technical experts will be kept at the center at all times to continuously monitor data from the buoys. In the case of a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will...
-- Issue a warning advisory and send ocean current data to all nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave. The national governments can then evacuate its citizens and take precautions as they see fit.
-- Send out an alert will to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), to prepare an emergency response team to be at the ready in the case of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, to send a response team to coastal areas to assist in evacuation and safety plans.

Unrestricted access to the data from the buoys shall be provided to nations that have established or choose to establish ocean monitoring or emergency warning centers.

3. Coastal Receiver/Satellite Network
A network of coastal receivers and satellites be established (in collaboration with existing receiver systems) and maintained to monitor the buoys. These coastal land receivers and satellites will constantly monitor data transmitted from the buoys, and send them to the Tsunami Early Warning Center previously mentioned.

The initial funds to create the system shall be contributed to by ALL member nations, as a massive tsunami disaster would have far-reaching effects on ALL nations, not simply coastal ones. However, after the initial creation of items 1, 2, and 3, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on the coastal nations.

Additionally, the United Nations proposes that an international convention of coastal nations be convened to establish standard international warning protocols and help all coastal nations at risk of tidal wave disasters develop and train for a tidal wave response procedure.

Proposal by the Dominion of Tejasdom, with contributions by the Confederated City States of Mikitivity and the Federation of Grosseschnauzer.

???
In what dream world would it be possible to move residential areas away from the coast?

Look around the earth - people like living next to water. They not only like living there, they get huge economic benefits from living there.

Look at any country in the real world, and tell us where land on the coast is worth less than land in the mountains. Show us any country with coastline that doesn't have a majority of the population living near the coast.

Since this was responding to me originally, all I was saying is that if people live further away from the coast then they are in less danger than if they lived on the coast. And sometimes you have to sacrifice some thing for something else - in this case living near the sea for not being in danger.

Since this was responding to me originally, all I was saying is that if people live further away from the coast then they are in less danger than if they lived on the coast. And sometimes you have to sacrifice some thing for something else - in this case living near the sea for not being in danger.
true, but countrey has to defend her citizens whenever they live, whenever they don't live outside your countrey borders.
if people choose to live near the sea (and that will give your countrey easy way for commerce, navy ships, and tourism), you had to keep them safe, even if that include buy expensive equipment that let them know when the tzunamy coming.

if I totaly misunderstood you, it could help if you let me know, by the way.

Well right now it's on page 17 of the proposals... Really hoping it goes through this time...

I'm not yet convinced that the DART isn't a good system on its own though (your other point). For example, I just don't know if a landslide can be picked up as an earthquake or not. Earthquakes are characterized by different types of waves ... if memory serves S-waves and P-waves (there may be others) that literally travel through the Earth similar to how we think of waves moving across water. The earthquake was likely first detected in Australia, which then transmitted just the sesmic information to Hawaii's Pacific Tsumani Warning Center. Hawaii then issued a warning to the Pacific nations participating in the program.

Point taken, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that DART could pick up a landslide-generated tsunami either.

For one thing, the references I've found (and I haven't looked as deeply as you or Tejasdom, I'm sure) say that landslides generate localised tsunamis, not ocean-wide ones.

For another, the sites about DART all seem to indicate that it is only used after a seismic event to confirm the existence of a tsunami and to give better information about the magnitude of the tsunami.

I reviewed the historical data from several of the installed DART buoys from last year (e.g., http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/view_text_file.php?filename=46402t2003.txt.gz&dir=/ftp/data/historical/dart/) and found several instances of what I assume to be false alarms. In the referenced dataset, look for 2's and 3's in the next-to-last column. I interpret this to mean the DART data is insufficient without seismic data indicating a possible tsunami.

I love the idea.
You will have my support for this.

The Federation of Grosseschnauzer is quite pleased to note that at the moment the proposal has obtained 72 of the 144 approvals needed to be taken to the floor as a draft resolution. The Federation is pleased to note that its regional delegate is among those who have already approved the proposal.

Hopefully, the remaining 72 delegate approvals can be obtained by the expiration of the voting period on Monday.

At the current time, the proposal can be found on page 11 of the list of proposals.

updated to note that with the purging of expired proposals, this proposal is now on page 6, with 87 approvals, and 57 more approvals still required.

Point taken, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that DART could pick up a landslide-generated tsunami either.


I don't see why not. The point of the system is to pick up on real-time differences in residual tides (i.e. they subtract out the astronomical and meterological influence).

:) But I'll dig around their page some more and see if maybe I can ask some other engineers more familiar with the system if they know if it can or can't.


For one thing, the references I've found (and I haven't looked as deeply as you or Tejasdom, I'm sure) say that landslides generate localised tsunamis, not ocean-wide ones.


*nod*

This is true. A landslide would be a local event, but tsunamis are caused by a sudden displacement of water, and are the waves associated with the movement of this water.

Think of it this way, if you canonball into a swimming pool, you will create massive "waves" in the pool. The cause of the waves isn't a change in the bottom of the pool, but the massive displacement of that water that used to be where you are now.

A person floating on a raft nearby is going to feel the shock of your canonball and will probably yell at you something along the lines of, "Hey, cut it out!"


For another, the sites about DART all seem to indicate that it is only used after a seismic event to confirm the existence of a tsunami and to give better information about the magnitude of the tsunami.


The NOAA pages presented it as if the buoys were active 24-7, but I don't know when they decide to send data to the satellites or when the satellites send data back.

But looking at that data few you provided, I'd call that a continuous / regular sampling ...


I reviewed the historical data from several of the installed DART buoys from last year (e.g., http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/view_text_file.php?filename=46402t2003.txt.gz&dir=/ftp/data/historical/dart/) and found several instances of what I assume to be false alarms. In the referenced dataset, look for 2's and 3's in the next-to-last column. I interpret this to mean the DART data is insufficient without seismic data indicating a possible tsunami.

The data from that link is being reported every 15-minutes, except when there is an event. Anybody call follow us here ... look at Feb. 19, 2003:


2003 02 19 03 30 00 1 9999.000
2003 02 19 03 30 00 2 4898.392
2003 02 19 03 31 00 2 4898.384
2003 02 19 03 32 00 2 4898.378
2003 02 19 03 33 00 2 4898.372
2003 02 19 03 34 00 2 4898.365
2003 02 19 03 35 00 2 4898.361
2003 02 19 03 36 00 2 4898.352
2003 02 19 03 37 00 2 4898.346
2003 02 19 03 38 00 2 4898.332
2003 02 19 03 38 15 3 4898.317
2003 02 19 03 38 30 3 4898.329
2003 02 19 03 38 45 3 4898.344
2003 02 19 03 39 00 2 4898.338
2003 02 19 03 39 00 3 4898.361


First, that 9999.0 is just bad data or a place holder. Not knowing how this data set is collected I can't tell you want it is, but it is common for environmental data sets to be populated with bogus entries like this. I'm not at all worried by this. :)

Something happened with this data set around 2 AM (local or GMT I don't know), triggering it to also report more frequent "event" data. This too is another common environmental data set procedure.

Now just looking at your data stream here, what I think the 1s, 2s, and 3s, are being used as, is as indicators. Basically NOAA can strip the event data out of this stream and return a normal looking 15-min regular time series of ocean stage data, without FUBARing somebody else's data set. (Trust me, it is again common engineering practice to use regular time series when possible.)

To give a better analysis of the DART data, you'd have to point me to the site where you downloaded that data (i.e. where you found that link). I'd need to read the actual metadata to find out what they consider "T": the variable of 1s, 2s, and 3s.

But I've given you my "if I had to work the data backwards" guess. :)

I'm still convinced that if the buoys are operated continuously, they could report the wake of a boat passing by if necessary. The basics behind water levels is very well understood, and as I pointed out above, the principal behind DART is to use real-time residuals and compare them verses modeled values.

I will have to admit that I havn't read too much into this. But the way I see it this proposal is too rash. What I mean is there has been an awful tsunami disaster, so people have thought "oh my god!! we must think of a way to stop this happening again", that is a fine view to take but they havn't really thought it through much.

Geologists, Earthquake specialists whatever the hell you want to call them, had a good idea there would be a tsunami. Thousands if not millions of 'egg heads' round the world were comparing data a minute after the earthquake had happened.

Basically, the best way to predict a tsunami is to look at the place an earthquake took place and the size of it, which we already have the technology to do. In the disaster this happened but look how many people still died! The bottom line is no more scientific measuring systems are needed. Especiall ones detecting tsunamies - because a tsunami starts as a ripple and is barely detectable.

The way to reduce the death toll is to spend more money on quick evacuation plans, warnings on the television and radio, sirens, whatever it takes to tell people to get to high ground! The only people that saved themselves from the disaster were locals that knew earthquake = tsunami.

Tell me if there's any massive inaccuracies in the post, chances are ive made a total idiot out of my self! :rolleyes:

What the proposal calls for, in effect, is an extension and expansion of a RL system already in place in the Pacific Ocean rim, to which all of the major nations located around the Pacific have joined. Not all earthquakes of at least 7.5 magnitude trigger a tsunami, and not all tsunamis are caused solely by earthquakes. So the underlying assumption of your assertion is not factually correct. What is partially true is that tsunamis can result when there are undersea earthquakes of magnitude 7.5 or greater.

What the proposal calls for, in effect, is an extension and expansion of a RL system already in place in the Pacific Ocean rim, to which all of the major nations located around the Pacific have joined. Not all earthquakes of at least 7.5 magnitude trigger a tsunami, and not all tsunamis are caused solely by earthquakes. So the underlying assumption of your assertion is not factually correct. What is partially true is that tsunamis can result when there are undersea earthquakes of magnitude 7.5 or greater.

OOC: I'd like to remind players that just because the real world has a series of bi-lateral agreements that formed the Pacific Ocean's warning system:

1) NationStates may or may not have such a network, &
2) A NS UN resolution would focus on building a UN sponsored (and larger) system.

We don't even know if there is an institutional agreement between many governments to share sesmic data let alone stage / water level data.

To claim that this is only being moved forward because of a real life event is not entirely correct. My government has been promoting disaster awareness and prevention *and* prevention and response coordination for nearly 9 months, via a series of UN resolutions and through the International Red Cross Organization.

This proposal idea is not being billed as the final and ultimate solution, but as a part of larger scale hazard mitigation efforts.

I don't see why not. The point of the system is to pick up on real-time differences in residual tides (i.e. they subtract out the astronomical and meterological influence).

OK, that comment was in response to my point about DART and localized tsunamis. I'll spell it out for you: the D in DART stands for Deep-ocean. Localized tsunamis don't go there; that's why they're localized. ;)


First, that 9999.0 is just bad data or a place holder. Not knowing how this data set is collected I can't tell you want it is, but it is common for environmental data sets to be populated with bogus entries like this. I'm not at all worried by this. :)

Something happened with this data set around 2 AM (local or GMT I don't know), triggering it to also report more frequent "event" data. This too is another common environmental data set procedure.

Now just looking at your data stream here, what I think the 1s, 2s, and 3s, are being used as, is as indicators. Basically NOAA can strip the event data out of this stream and return a normal looking 15-min regular time series of ocean stage data, without FUBARing somebody else's data set. (Trust me, it is again common engineering practice to use regular time series when possible.)

To give a better analysis of the DART data, you'd have to point me to the site where you downloaded that data (i.e. where you found that link). I'd need to read the actual metadata to find out what they consider "T": the variable of 1s, 2s, and 3s.

But I've given you my "if I had to work the data backwards" guess. :)

I'm still convinced that if the buoys are operated continuously, they could report the wake of a boat passing by if necessary. The basics behind water levels is very well understood, and as I pointed out above, the principal behind DART is to use real-time residuals and compare them verses modeled values.
Yes, the 9999 is a placeholder. The 1, 2, and 3 have to do with sample time. 1 is normal. When a potential event is detected, the system switches to 3 (15-second intervals), then goes to 2 (1 minute intervals) when the new level has stabilized, or something.

I'll try to be more precise.

The problem isn't whether DART can detect an ocean-wide tsunami on its own; it can.

The problem is false positives.

DART was invented not because the seismic monitors ever missed a tsunami, but because over 40 years they gave a dozen or two dozen false alarms. DART is intended to work in conjunction with the seismic monitors to screen out false positives.

That 1 buoy gave several false positives in the course of 1 year. DART isn't reliable without being linked to seismic monitoring.

OK, that last sentence is just my analysis of it.

OK, that comment was in response to my point about DART and localized tsunamis. I'll spell it out for you: the D in DART stands for Deep-ocean. Localized tsunamis don't go there; that's why they're localized. ;)


When engineers and scientists name their computer models they often come up with cute names, and in the process make things a bit misleading.

The practice of using tidal residuals in coastal and esturarine environments should be identical to the deep ocean.

I wouldn't make the assumption that because they named their buoy system Deep-Ocean that it only works in the deep oceans.


Yes, the 9999 is a placeholder. The 1, 2, and 3 have to do with sample time. 1 is normal. When a potential event is detected, the system switches to 3 (15-second intervals), then goes to 2 (1 minute intervals) when the new level has stabilized, or something.

I'll try to be more precise.

The problem isn't whether DART can detect an ocean-wide tsunami on its own; it can.

The problem is false positives.

DART was invented not because the seismic monitors ever missed a tsunami, but because over 40 years they gave a dozen or two dozen false alarms. DART is intended to work in conjunction with the seismic monitors to screen out false positives.

That 1 buoy gave several false positives in the course of 1 year. DART isn't reliable without being linked to seismic monitoring.

OK, that last sentence is just my analysis of it.

In the real world DART currently works in conjunction with seismic monitors because it is a new system that was built *after* the seismic program. It is limited to 6 buoys, with number 7 still being hacked out.

But we aren't here to talk *only* about the merits of DART, we are here to talk about the merits of the idea of using a buoy network (as proposed by Tejasdom) to provide warning of tsunamis.

The concepts and physics behind DART are certainly IMO (remember when I'm not playing this game, I'm an esturary engineer) capable of detecting tsunamis without a sesmic grid. (Though in my professional opinion, redundant gauges -- data collection systems are a necessary evil.) The other issue I think will need to be addressed is a communication protocol ... but that can easily be done (look at some of my prior resolutions, I believe that in a year in NationStates that my government has established that it is happy enough to follow through and clean up other government's aborted ideas).

Now the real question (and disagreement in our opinions) is that you are claiming that DART issued false positives ... or more correctly that it did not screen out false positives.

Just because the data set when to reporting event specific data (which it did with some reguarlity in your 2003 data set), I have yet to read the metadata for your timeseries (I tried back tracking your link and it didn't work ... and could really use the link to the site that pointed you to the raw data), but I don't believe that the Tsunami Warning Center was issuing warnings when the buoy was moving to finer detail. It is my guess that 1s, 2s, and 3s aren't the warnings, they are just flags ... to be used to screen out the data or alert another post processing protocol.

I think the issue I have is that if DART was not worthwhile, then NOAA wouldn't be featuring it, but instead would have links to proposed new methodologies ... or at least one would hope.

Again, I will be happy to reverse / change my opinion, if I can read the metadata for the NOAA timeseries you provided, but frankly we don't know enough to say that the buoy network does not work.

Well, now I know why this smiley is included :headbang: :headbang:

The data came from http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/hmd.shtml - they maintain the DART buoys now.

1. According to everything I've read, DART wouldn't work in waters shallower than a few hundred meters. Teh NY Times has an article about it right now.

ii: Even if a system could be devised for coastal waters, it wouldn't give more than a couple minutes warning.

C) You misunderstood me. DART did not fail to screen out false positives. Had it been the primary source for tsunami detection, those series of 2's and 3's would have been the false positives.

IV. This page http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/Dart/system.shtml describes the algorithm, system design, and reporting frequency.

@# Even if a deep water system could be designed that by itself could reliably detect tsunamis and filter out false positives, it would be much more expensive than a thin network of buoys supplementing ground-based seismographs.

8| An estuarian engineer? You, what, dredge river deltas? How does that make you a tsunami expert? It doesn't, that's how.

I think it should be pointed out that DART is not the *only* buoy system used to measure tsunami's, it just happens to be in deep ocean, thus better equipped to report info in places communities are not.

An old but interesting article worth reading is at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/its2001/Separate_Papers/R-07_McCreery.pdf

In particular, section 3, which focuses on Sea Level means of detecting tsunamis applies to the proposed system, and does talk about a hundred coastal buoys being used in addition to DART. I'm *guessing* that these instruments are owned and operated by individual governments.

In any event, to nations with a doubt in the ability to use tidal / stage data to detect tsunamis, I think this paper will easy some of those fears. :)

I don't think your reference was at all saying what you thought it was.
Those new "sea level" sensors are land based.


The sensors are planned for elevations of at least 10 ft above mean sea level to avoid flooding by occasional high surf, and at places where significant run-ups from past local tsunamis have been recorded.


Even if some of the older ones are some kind of shallow water buoy system, the article is clear about them only being useful in confirming ocean-wide tsunamis near the source. Read the part in 2.2 about how long it takes to get measurements from the various stations. 15 min from Nicaragua, 20 min for Chile, 25 min for Kermadec Islands, 15 min for Japan. Then read the part in 3.2 about how 10 minutes is too long for a local tsunami and they hope to get it down to 4 minutes.

Furthermore: if you want to claim that these "sea level" sensors are in fact some kind of shallow water buoy system, provide references to technical specs and analyses of how they screen out false positives independent of land-based seismic monitoring.



I don't understand why you're being like this. You could vastly improve the proposal by adding provisions for global land-based seismic monitoring networks too. It would cut the cost significantly, and improve the usefulness of the resulting system.

Well, now I know why this smiley is included :headbang: :headbang:


That is OK, I feel as though I'm talking to a wall too!


The data came from http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/hmd.shtml - they maintain the DART buoys now.

1. According to everything I've read, DART wouldn't work in waters shallower than a few hundred meters. Teh NY Times has an article about it right now.

ii: Even if a system could be devised for coastal waters, it wouldn't give more than a couple minutes warning.


This doesn't dispute anything I've said.

The reason it could only provide a couple minutes warning in coastal waters is the waves travel at incredible speeds. Tejasdom has already pointed that out.


@# Even if a deep water system could be designed that by itself could reliably detect tsunamis and filter out false positives, it would be much more expensive than a thin network of buoys supplementing ground-based seismographs.


And you are basing your quote on the costs on what information?

We've established a cost for the existing DART program already. $250,000 million fixed + IIRC $125,000 million annual operating / buoy. This is discounting the cost of 20-days ship board time for maintanence and the satelite (sp?) network.


8| An estuarian engineer? You, what, dredge river deltas? How does that make you a tsunami expert? It doesn't, that's how.

Estuarine (not estuarian). By trade I'm a civil engineer.

I model hydrodynamics and water quality in tidal estuaries, specifically in California's San Francisco Bay-Delta. If you message me I'll be happy to point you to a series of my papers, but the bottom line is, I do understand the basic concepts behind tidal mechanics.

You've yet to dispute:

1) The fact that this proposed system works by identifying anomalies in tidal residuals ... meaning the THEORY behind Tejasdom's proposal is sound.

2) The fact that in NationStates we don't know what other nations currently have in place.

3) The fact that a proposal for a buoy system is not mutually exclusive to other means / solutions as well.

I compliament you on taking an interest in this and reading the NOAA and other links, but also consider this as game as a chance to build the world as YOU would rather have it.

All I've maintained from the start is that a system of buoys like DART can detect tsunamis. If more governments worked together it could be instrumental.

I don't understand why you're being like this. You could vastly improve the proposal by adding provisions for global land-based seismic monitoring networks too. It would cut the cost significantly, and improve the usefulness of the resulting system.

Where are you getting estimates of costs for seismic monitoring networks?

I haven't seen anything from Tejasdom, because as the sponsor and author of record, it's his call. However, as of the last time I checked overnight before the system update, the proposal was still ten approvals short, so it appears a third attempt would be required. I suppose but for the New Years' holiday weekend, there would have been enough time. I would support a third attempt with the same draft as before; I'm not aware of any glaring issues with that draft that require further change.

I saved the following off the proposal queue at the point last night when the proposal has 134 approvals:

Tsunami Warning System

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Tejasdom

Description: International Ocean Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Detection and Warning

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly hereby proposes an international network of buoys that would provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal regions.

Especially in many poorer regions, nations lack the funds to construct and maintain a buoy system in their waters. As such, when large tidal waves approach their coast, they have no warning whatsoever, and can not take the necessary precautions to prevent the excessive loss of life and property.

The United Nations proposes that:

1. Buoy Network
A network of buoys shall be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the coast, as space permits. These would give advance warnings of approximately* 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours to nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave.

*Based on an average tidal wave speed of 800 km/hr (497 mi/hr)

These buoys will be established in areas of volcanic or tectonic plate activity, as those are the only areas in which large, destructive tidal waves actually occur, and will be built in collaboration with the pre-existing buoy systems of other nations.

2. Tsunami Emergency Warning Center
The United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) be established. A team of technical experts will be kept at the center at all times to continuously monitor data from the buoys. In the case of a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will...
-- Issue a warning advisory and send ocean current data to all nations that may be affected by an incoming tidal wave. The national governments can then evacuate its citizens and take precautions as they see fit.
-- Send out an alert will to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), to prepare an emergency response team to be at the ready in the case of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, to send a response team to coastal areas to assist in evacuation and safety plans.

Unrestricted access to the data from the buoys shall be provided to nations that have established or choose to establish ocean monitoring or emergency warning centers.

3. Coastal Receiver/Satellite Network
A network of coastal receivers and satellites be established (in collaboration with existing receiver systems) and maintained to monitor the buoys. These coastal land receivers and satellites will constantly monitor data transmitted from the buoys, and send them to the Tsunami Early Warning Center previously mentioned.

The initial funds to create the system shall be contributed to by ALL member nations, as a massive tsunami disaster would have far-reaching effects on ALL nations, not simply coastal ones. However, after the initial creation of items 1, 2, and 3, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on the coastal nations.

Additionally, the United Nations proposes that an international convention of coastal nations be convened to establish standard international warning protocols and help all coastal nations at risk of tidal wave disasters develop and train for a tidal wave response procedure.

Proposal by the Dominion of Tejasdom, with contributions by the Confederated City States of Mikitivity and the Federation of Grosseschnauzer.

Approvals: 134 (Dimmimar, Oniram, SovietRepublicofRussia, New Cyberia, Hockey Fandom, LouFerringoland, Eridanus, Mescania, XelNaga Raiders, Riversland, Mettatron, Klaun, Metal Poets, Pilot, WZ Forums, Steenia, Cheer and Love, Anaximanderin, The Derrak Quadrant, Morrissette, DragonSpeartopia, Powerhungry Chipmunks, Justifiable Genocide, Cameleo, War Child, Bertiana, New York Jet Fanatics, Yelda, Novus Terra Reborn, Infinityx, Palteau, Ataraxics, East Czechoslovakia, Real Sylvania, Zippino, Groot Gouda, Dafidutopia, The kevinngzh, BearNation, Ossaca, Pixiedance, Patrick6h, Atlantic Districts, Korudhrim, Danitoria, Master Tom, Taloni, Beld, Watari, La Commune Quebecoise, Hessen Nassau, Ithapher, JS Nijmegen, Tiber City, Rouyn, Squallas, Butang, Mikeswill, Tweeed, Wezep, Baribeau, The Enterprise D, Maraque, Soft Meeps, Catanacia, Tallylandia, ApathysAffliction, Alatun, Naval Snipers, The Bruce, Doyel, New Larson, 1 Infinite Loop, Dos Locos, Anjali, Yafor 2, Ultraliberalisme, Perchance, Pashtyurr, Justice and Democracy, Jebusmt, Amsinia, Pimp Daddy Po, Pimps Have Seven Lives, Sunkite Islands, Polyglotmadgeniusland, Tzimiscie, DKGS, Xqm, Avalya, Beta Centaury, TreyTheMan, FoxTopia, Bonnie Doon, Sabbe, Markodonia, Hellieville, Danzeemania, Docekaheedron, Geneville, Ekdahlia, Certifiable Psychos, StrongBadia Land, Innocentius, Holy Pickles, Juraina, Tuonela, Lumbee, Duplek, Venerable libertarians, Brotopia, Dizziness, JayRoddia, Saqqara, Southern Arizona, South Ural, Domintora, DougIsGodLand, Izalium, Nazi Aurelia, Minnesotia, Land of MilknHoney, Dyvan, Neo-Nazi Ass Clowns, Flaime, The Non-Sequitur, Krostovia, Snipers United, Trinosia, Ereshan, South Brevarad, Zapvilla, Honestmoenia, Pepsi Maxia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 10 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Jan 3 2005

Any ideas?

Hrm, looks like we missed it again. I'm sorry to say that i've sort of given up on NationStates... not specifically the proposal, but just... lotsa stress attributed with it and sensing a bit of Everquest-esque... Getting too addicted to it and got to stop for myself before I get consumed into a 24/7, checking on the site every lunch break type of thing...

If you'd like, anyone can go ahead and rewrite, resubmit, or do anything with the proposal... Thanks for all the help with it, and hopefully it goes through. Good luck!

Hrm, looks like we missed it again. I'm sorry to say that i've sort of given up on NationStates... not specifically the proposal, but just... lotsa stress attributed with it and sensing a bit of Everquest-esque... Getting too addicted to it and got to stop for myself before I get consumed into a 24/7, checking on the site every lunch break type of thing...

If you'd like, anyone can go ahead and rewrite, resubmit, or do anything with the proposal... Thanks for all the help with it, and hopefully it goes through. Good luck!

:) It is most addictive, but I'm sorry to hear that you are giving up, as my government has always respected your nation.

For proposals, 3-5 times is normal, and you have to aggressively telegram in order to reach the 6% threshold.

As Grosseschnauzer pointed out, it is possible that many Delegates are away right now too!

If you are not interested in resubmitting the idea, Groot Gouda had a much more generalized version which also talked about seismic monitoring ... I'd be happy to dig up his nation's suggestion.

Please don't give up! My nation thinks that this proposal is essentially a very good idea, and very important (and, alas, given extra importance for being based on very tragic RL events).

Plus, I was really starting to enjoy such an actual DISCUSSION, as opposed to the "I'm right and you're an idiot even if we both aren't making any sense" that many threads seem to degenrate into.

Pity you are giving up - the idea of the resolution was good, though it wasn't completely my taste. Also, it's holiday time so it's a bit harder than usual to reach quorum right now.

If you don't mind, I'll continue with my version and try to get that passed. With the help of Mikitivity and other fellow members of the International Democratic Union, it should be able to get very far.

Mikitivity, we'd support any other member would wants to adopt the proposal as it was last submitted and reintriduce it.

Since Grosseschnauzer's primary contribution were to help refine the language and to introduce the call for a international convention for a global warning stabdards and a standardized response system, those are the elements that would be required in a proposal to have Grosseschnauzer's unqualified support.

Pity you are giving up - the idea of the resolution was good, though it wasn't completely my taste. Also, it's holiday time so it's a bit harder than usual to reach quorum right now.

If you don't mind, I'll continue with my version and try to get that passed. With the help of Mikitivity and other fellow members of the International Democratic Union, it should be able to get very far.

Link, please.

If it's anything like this resolution, but with seismic sensors and provisions for dissemination of the information and coastal warning systems, we will strongly favor it. We will even help with the advertising.

Link, please.

If it's anything like this resolution, but with seismic sensors and provisions for dissemination of the information and coastal warning systems, we will strongly favor it. We will even help with the advertising.

Here is the link to the IDU thread:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=177

And here is the very rough draft (naturally I think all of us at the IDU would like to work on this and get it "right") Groot proposed:

Tectonic Disaster Warning Systems

The NS UN,

RECALLING several disasters caused by earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions,

NOTING that these disasters rarely stop at national borders,

DEEPLY REGRETTING the immense loss of life and material damages that are the results of these disasters,

EMPHASIZING that the technology exists to warn citizens in many cases of the approaching dangers of these disasters,

CALLS UPON all UN member nations that are in or near an area of tectonic activity to set up a Geological Survey which monitors tectonic activity and conducts scientific research in this field,

URGES all nations to share techology and scientific research with eachother to improve warning systems,

ADVISES that evacuation plans are made for areas that are potentially affected by tectonic disasters,

EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that by international cooperation without national barriers will prevent unnecessary loss of life in future disasters

Groisseschnauzer has reviewed the rough draft and has concerns that it has an effect that is weaker than Grosseschnauzer believes to be appropriate in the circumstances. However, it also recognizes that the Tejasdom proposal appeared to limit the proposed system to water based buoys and did not include mention of sensors that could be placed on the deep ocean floor or on land areas to detect tectonic, semesic, and volcanic activity that could generate tsunami conditions in the appropriate circumstances.

In the hope that this might serve as a compromise between the two conceptualizations of an appropriate resolution, Grosseschnauzer suggests the following draft for discussion.
_____________________________
Global Tsunami Detection and Warning System

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Mild

Proposed by:

Description: Global Sensor and Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Detection and Warning

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly:

RECOGNIZING that future massive tsunami disasters would have far-reaching effects on all nations, not only nations having ocean coastlines.

RECOGNIZING that especially in many poorer regions, there are nations that lack the funds to construct and maintain an appropriate detection system in their territory, in their territorial waters, or in international waters; and that, as a result, when tsunami waves approached a coast, there has been no prior warning whatsoever, and further, that affected nations are unable to take necessary precautions to prevent excessive loss of life and property;

ESTABLISHES a global network of land-based and deep ocean sensors and water surface buoys to provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal areas, comprised of the following elements:

1. A network of deep ocean sensors and ocean surface buoys, to be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the respective coastlines, as appropriate. The network would provide data that generates advance warning of approximately one hour, two hours, and four hours to nations that may be affected by incoming tsunami waves, based upon an average speed of 800 km/hr (497 mi/hr). Water surface buoys, and deep ocean and land sensors are to be placed in areas of volcanic or tectonic plate activity, and in territorial and international waters, as determined by technical experts. The global network is to be built in collaboration with any pre-existing sensor and buoy systems of various nations. Unrestricted access to the data from the sensor and buoy network shall be provided to nations that have established, or choose to establish, their own tsunami monitoring or emergency warning centers.

2.A network of coastal land data receivers and satellites be established and maintained (in collaboration with existing coastal receiver and satellite systems) to continuously monitor data transmitted from the sensors and buoy network. and transmit such data to a United Nations Tsunami Early Warning Center.

3. The United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) is created. A team of technical experts will staff the center at all times to continuously monitor data and evaluate incoming data. In the event that TEWC identifies a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will issue a warning advisory and transmit all pertinent seismic and ocean current data to any nation that may be affected by an incoming tsunami. National governments can then act to evacuate its citizens and take other precautions as they see fit. The TEWC will also transmit the warning advisory to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), so the IRCO may prepare an emergency response team in the event of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, provide assistance to nations that may be directly affected in the implementation of local precautionary plans.

DETERMINES that initial funding for construction of the system is to be contributed by ALL member nations; however, after the initial construction of the system elements, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on coastal nations subject to a risk of a tsunami disaster.

DIRECTS that an international convention of coastal nations be convened to determine a funding contribution formula, establish standard international warning protocols, and provide assistance for all coastal nations at risk of tsunami disasters in the development and training for a response procedure.
____________________________________

End of draft

Groisseschnauzer has reviewed the rough draft and has concerns that it has an effect that is weaker than Grosseschnauzer believes to be appropriate in the circumstances. However, it also recognizes that the Tejasdom proposal appeared to limit the proposed system to water based buoys and did not include mention of sensors that could be placed on the deep ocean floor or on land areas to detect tectonic, semesic, and volcanic activity that could generate tsunami conditions in the appropriate circumstances.

In the hope that this might serve as a compromise between the two conceptualizations of an appropriate resolution, Grosseschnauzer suggests the following draft for discussion.
_____________________________
Global Tsunami Detection and Warning System

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by:

Description: Global Sensor and Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Detection and Warning

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly:

RECOGNIZING that future massive tsunami disasters would have far-reaching effects on all nations, not only nations having ocean coastlines.

RECOGNIZING that especially in many poorer regions, there are nations that lack the funds to construct and maintain an appropriate detection system in their territory, in their territorial waters, or in international waters; and that, as a result, when tsunami waves approached a coast, there has been no prior warning whatsoever, and further, that affected nations are unable to take necessary precautions to prevent excessive loss of life and property;

ESTABLISHES a global network of land-based and deep ocean sensors and water surface buoys to provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal areas, comprised of the following elements:

1. A network of deep ocean sensors and ocean surface buoys, to be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the respective coastlines, as appropriate. The network would provide data that generates advance warning of approximately one hour, two hours, and four hours to nations that may be affected by incoming tsunami waves, based upon an average speed of 800 km/hr (497 mi/hr). Water surface buoys, and deep ocean and land sensors are to be placed in areas of volcanic or tectonic plate activity, and in territorial and international waters, as determined by technical experts. The global network is to be built in collaboration with any pre-existing sensor and buoy systems of various nations. Unrestricted access to the data from the sensor and buoy network shall be provided to nations that have established, or choose to establish, their own tsunami monitoring or emergency warning centers.

2.A network of coastal land data receivers and satellites be established and maintained (in collaboration with existing coastal receiver and satellite systems) to continuously monitor data transmitted from the sensors and buoy network. and transmit such data to a United Nations Tsunami Early Warning Center.

3. The United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) is created. A team of technical experts will staff the center at all times to continuously monitor data and evaluate incoming data. In the event that TEWC identifies a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will issue a warning advisory and transmit all pertinent seismic and ocean current data to any nation that may be affected by an incoming tsunami. National governments can then act to evacuate its citizens and take other precautions as they see fit. The TEWC will also transmit the warning advisory to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), so the IRCO may prepare an emergency response team in the event of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, provide assistance to nations that may be directly affected in the implementation of local precautionary plans.

DETERMINES that initial funding for construction of the system is to be contributed by ALL member nations; however, after the initial construction of the system elements, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on coastal nations subject to a risk of a tsunami disaster.

DIRECTS that an international convention of coastal nations be convened to determine a funding contribution formula, establish standard international warning protocols, and provide assistance for all coastal nations at risk of tsunami disasters in the development and training for a response procedure.
____________________________________

End of draft

I think this is a better draft, but two quick thoughts.

First, I think that although the tragic events occured in the real world, that us implying that this happened here too might frigthen the powers that be. I'd say we delete the red part, everybody will know WHY we are doing this.

Second, the blue text, specifically the TEWC, seems like it should be its own section. I'd even change the formatting a wee-bit more.

I'll look at this some more today and print a hard copy and then do a rewrite if you don't mind. I really appreciate how you've merged Tejasdom's and Groot's proposals!

This is exactly the type of positive behavior I'd like to encourage more often.

Mikitivity, as I said, this is intended to be a starting point for discussion of a revised draft.

It should have been noted that some of the editorial changes reflect information broadcast on cable channels operated by www.discovery.com on the status of tsunami warning systems, including the use of deep ocean sensors, the use of both the sensor/buoy system and existing seismic detection systems for tsunami detection, and the desire in the RL system to use this technology to create a global warning system covering the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Ocean basins
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050103/tsunamimaker.html

Mikitivity, as I said, this is intended to be a starting point for discussion of a revised draft.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050103/tsunamimaker.html

That is a very well written document, and does address some of the non-earthquake based causes as well.

Thank you.

ESTABLISHES a global network of land-based and deep ocean sensors and water surface buoys to provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal areas, comprised of the following elements:

That's not good enough for me. There should be global cooperation on detection of seismic activity and taking measures to prevent loss of human life. To put a specific type of measure in the resolution is too limiting. Who cares whether buoys are used or not? That's detail. Scientists can figure that out, and recommend the best solution. All your nation has to do is fund the research, and facilitate cooperation with other nation's global surveys.

:eek: I grew up about an hour's drive from the Atlantic Ocean in Eastern N.C., USA. Hurricanes are bad enough...but this... :( And it could get worse. Alot worse. There's a lot of evidence that Tidal Waves have hit the U.S.'s western coast fairly regularly over time. And there are areas there now where the population in several counties will combine to number in the billions, I think...Southern California...

I had a friend of mine tell me that quake was strong enough to cause a two second pause in the Earth's rotation, so the freaky weather we're having in Saint Louis isn't that big of a surprise: Just because the LAND stops moving doesn't mean the weather systems and the oceans did. One sped up and the other one sloshed....

If that thing had gone off just a wee bit further to the north, we'd be trying to re-float Japan right now.

That's not good enough for me. There should be global cooperation on detection of seismic activity and taking measures to prevent loss of human life. To put a specific type of measure in the resolution is too limiting. Who cares whether buoys are used or not? That's detail. Scientists can figure that out, and recommend the best solution. All your nation has to do is fund the research, and facilitate cooperation with other nation's global surveys.


I think I'd have to agree to this as well. The earth's crust must be monitored at all levels. All seismic activity needs to be addressed.

Goot Gouda, I want to point out that the suggestion (point one) maes specific references to land based and ocean detectors, the intent is that whatever technical requirements are needed be left for the proposed TEWC and the onternational convention to asertain.

1. A network of deep ocean sensors and ocean surface buoys, to be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the respective coastlines, as appropriate. The network would provide data that generates advance warning of approximately one hour, two hours, and four hours to nations that may be affected by incoming tsunami waves, based upon an average speed of 800 km/hr (497 mi/hr). Water surface buoys, and deep ocean and land sensors are to be placed in areas of volcanic or tectonic plate activity, and in territorial and international waters, as determined by technical experts. The global network is to be built in collaboration with any pre-existing sensor and buoy systems of various nations. Unrestricted access to the data from the sensor and buoy network shall be provided to nations that have established, or choose to establish, their own tsunami monitoring or emergency warning centers.

It would be constructive for what Grosseschnauzer seeks to accomplish if you suggested specific language that embodies what you percieve as a deficiency. I'm trying my best to find a centrist compromise between your rough draft quoted earlier in the thread and the original proposal. and have something that is practical and not vague.

Goot Gouda, I want to point out that the suggestion (point one) maes specific references to land based and ocean detectors, the intent is that whatever technical requirements are needed be left for the proposed TEWC and the onternational convention to asertain.



It would be constructive for what Grosseschnauzer seeks to accomplish if you suggested specific language that embodies what you percieve as a deficiency. I'm trying my best to find a centrist compromise between your rough draft quoted earlier in the thread and the original proposal. and have something that is practical and not vague.

:) I'm sorry I got swept up in the repeal debate, and ended up ignoring this proposal today.

I'm gonna call it a night now, but tomorrow I'll print a hardcopy of the drafts and see if perhaps I can lend a more active hand.

a waste of money, people are going to die and property destroyed anyway.

a waste of money, people are going to die and property destroyed anyway.

How much do you think a real-life buoy system will cost to operate per year? $Thousands, $Millions, or $Billions.

While NationStates may be larger or smaller than our world, it also is populated by over 35,000 UN members, instead of the 150 to 200 real life UN members.

I honestly don't think we can say everybody, but I think if the cost is only $10 to $100 Million / year, then it may save that much simply the reduction of life and property loss.

As for property loss, in the Gulf of Mexico it is a common site for coastal communities to build sea walls. While these would not be appropriate or necessary in all locations in NationStates, there are many other engineering practices that can be designed to protect structures and even the people within them.

I've been wondering if engineering design practices should be referenced in this resolution or perhaps wait for another one related to a sort of uniform building code -- the problem here is I actually see uniform building codes as being domestic in nature. While such a code could make use of hazard zones similar to US building codes (in the US we have multiple seismic zones and states often employ local building codes to deal with snow pack and hurricane winds) to account for the environment environments.

a waste of money, people are going to die and property destroyed anyway.The whole point of the system is so people can be evacuated before it hits

I've been wondering if engineering design practices should be referenced in this resolution or perhaps wait for another one related to a sort of uniform building code -- the problem here is I actually see uniform building codes as being domestic in nature. While such a code could make use of hazard zones similar to US building codes (in the US we have multiple seismic zones and states often employ local building codes to deal with snow pack and hurricane winds) to account for the environment environments.

I'm not sure how that could be handled. There isn't room for specific building code standards due to the technical limitations of the proposal function in the game mechanics, so the most one could hope for, space wise, is to expand the call for a international convention to have technical experts devise model building code requirements.

One of the problems can be illustrated by the building code requirements for hurricane conditions. (real life illustration) Back in the 1950s, construction codes were very strict, in response to the major hurricanes that caused widespread devasation in Florida from the 1920s to the 1940s. During the 1970s and 1980s those standards were weakened, and directly contributed to the extensive damage in south Florida in response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992. And as the four hurricanes this past year showed, there's still a lot of room for improvement, even though none of the storms in 2004 were individually as strong as Andrew was. I do recall reading however that New Orleans would not be able to sustain a direct hit by a category 5 hurricane; the city would be permanently flooded beyond redemption/ On the other hand, California seems to have had success with their building code requirements for earthquakes (so far).

Now with tsunamis, one would be dealing with natural forces that, from what was seen in Sumatra, is the equivalent of a atomic blast several kilometers inland. All these are factors that would have to be taken into account in any model building standards, and I'm not trained as an engineer or an architect, and I honestly don;t know what would be feasible and whether model building standards are possible.

OOC: Are you an engineer IRL? :) Am and, and typically people who are concerned about building codes tend to be techies.

IC:
Well, I'm about to post a rewrite of your version and Groots, based largely in part on my Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution ... it is long. It includes seismic data (per Asshelmetta's request as well). It is variable / flexible enough to include other planets. But I had to drop out your clause 1, because I was afraid that the numbers would bother some of the Science Fantasy nations ... though the wave travel speed of a tsunami may be fixed for water (I'm not 100% here), I would imagine that if some player were to claim that he was a robot from a planet with a different liquid that the density of the fluid would be enough that the waves may travel at other speeds ... I've not really bothered to do more than just trust NOAA on this issue -- though your numbers are correct for Earth and most of our nations. :)

UNITED NATIONS DRAFT RESOLUTION
Tsunami Warning System
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: ?

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

DEEPLY REGRETTING the scale of the loss of life and property due to tsunamis;

AWARE that the some of causes of tsunamis include earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, and celestial impacts, but that the primary danger associated with a tsunami is related to the displacement of water (i.e. waves);

NOTING that these disasters can impact multiple nations at the same time;

EMPHASIZING that the citizens from non-coastal communities may be at risk while on vacation or business in coastal communities;

CONVINCED that by pooling resources to: detect potential tsunamis, issue warnings to the areas likely to be impacted, coordinate international aid efforts, and share research related to tsunamis, that nations can better prepare for these disasters;

1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations sponsored and funded Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC), to be staffed by a team of technical experts who can collect and monitor seismic and stage data in order to study the physics related to tsunamis in different locations, identify possible threats to populated areas, and issue warnings in the event of such a threat;

2. REQUESTS member nations to forward seismic data already being collected to the TEWC to aid in its research and monitoring program;

3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have seismic networks work with the TEWC and other nations in order to enhance existing seismic monitoring and planetary and oceanography programs (which can be considered linked to police and emergency response budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

4. DIRECTS the TEWC to establish a network of land-based and deep ocean (buoy) sensors to monitor changes in the water surface across the network, in order to confirm possible tsunamis created by earthquakes or volcanic activity as well as to observe and identify tsunamis created by other physical processes that are undetected by seismic waves (such as landslides or large scale impacts);

5. MANDATES that the TEWC transmit a standardized advisory warning based on its timely analysis of data collected by both the seismic and water surface monitoring programs;

6. CALLS UPON member nations to provide the TEWC with emergency contact centers that can quickly respond to tsunami warnings issued by the TEWC;

7. DRAWS ATTENTION TO the need for member nations to develop evacuation and response plans in the event of a tsunami warning by ensuring that adequate emergency response teams and equipment is available to deal with the likely damages associated with a tsunami consistent for that nation;

8. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that in the event of a tsunami disaster that nations will continue to offer humanitarian assistance to affected nations; and

9. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization in the event of a disaster in order to coordinate international disaster relief efforts.

International Red Cross Organization? Is that a NSUN thing?

I'd suggest you change the wording on point 9, but Asshelmetta will support it regardless if it's still in the queue when I overthrow those AOF usurpers later tonight and become the delegate for my region again.

International Red Cross Organization? Is that a NSUN thing?

I'd suggest you change the wording on point 9, but Asshelmetta will support it regardless if it's still in the queue when I overthrow those AOF usurpers later tonight and become the delegate for my region again.

Yes. On Sept. 1, 2003 the NS UN passed a resolution, The IRCO, which created an International Red Cross Organization for NationStates.

We aren't allowed to use real world organizations or references, but anything that is created and exists in the game is OK.

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=6

Do you still think I should reword Clause 9?

If so how does the following sound:

9. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization in order to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.

I just cut out a few words of clause 9, and in the proposed draft made in-line changes to the last preambulatory clause and clause 1. :)

Stankystan was shocked with recent events in Indic Ocean area.
Our sympathy goes to those who lost family members and first need assets in the Tsunami.

As a member of UN, Stankystan will approve a proposal based on the debated draft.

Mikitivity

OOC: Are you an engineer IRL? Am and, and typically people who are concerned about building codes tend to be techies.


No, but it is amazing what one has to learn once one has completed law school! ;) The dean of my law school would tell us that a good lawyer had to be good enough of a student to master anything well enough to cross-examine an expert in that field.

As to the draft, my primary quibbles are twofold:

First, there is a lack of reference to a standard warning protocol (e.g., similar to the standardized warning system for tropical cyclones), so that essentially anyone in an affected country who receives a warning can understand what is being warned, and in general, what actions they should take.

Second, I think the action verb in clause 7 should be stronger than "requests".

In any event, would the draft fit into the space limitations in the proposal input screen? As I recall that was a problem when the original proposal was first set forth.

As to the draft, my primary quibbles are twofold:

First, there is a lack of reference to a standard warning protocol (e.g., similar to the standardized warning system for tropical cyclones), so that essentially anyone in an affected country who receives a warning can understand what is being warned, and in general, what actions they should take.

Second, I think the action verb in clause 7 should be stronger than "requests".

In any event, would the draft fit into the space limitations in the proposal input screen? As I recall that was a problem when the original proposal was first set forth.

First, thank you.

Second, I've changed the following:


5. MANDATES that the TEWC transmit a standardized advisory warning based on its timely analysis of data collected by both the seismic and water surface monitoring programs;

6. CALLS UPON member nations to provide the TEWC with emergency contact centers that can quickly respond to tsunami warnings issued by the TEWC;

7. DRAWS ATTENTION TO the need for member nations to develop evacuation and response plans in the event of a tsunami warning by ensuring that adequate emergency response teams and equipment is available to deal with the likely damages associated with a tsunami consistent for that nation;

Two points on these changes. We have to be a bit vague about the warnings used in various nations, because if I were to say one thing, somebody will come out of the wood work and invent a race of magical aliens that can't hear or see the warning. :( Why players do this all the time, I don't know, but it happens.

REQUESTS to DRAWS ATTENTION TO is still kinda weak. The point being made is unlike the Global Federalists whom like to believe the UN has a mandate to impose its will on other nations, the Sovereign Rights camp of nations will throw there support behind this if we toss them a bone or two.

You'll notice that I pass directives to the TEWC all the time. It is created and run by the UN. The UN can tell it to jump and it must jump.

I've written this resolution to be more respectiful of nations and their needs by backing off on those first words.

If this is a sticking point, I'll cave on this issue, but I'd honestly like to promote the idea that the UN is not a tool for global domination. Especially in light of the fact that this is an international security resolution, and having written and defended one of these before, I don't want people thinking I'm trying to come in with jack-boots and handgrenades and telling them how to run their countries. I'm not.

Finally, as written it *barely* fits. I can probably squeeze in one more clause if necessary, and you are right ... a standardized warning on beaches is a good idea. Even if a few players have citizens that can't hear an "air raid" siren on a beach, the idea is to save as many as possible. I can add a clause to convey that idea and probably keep this under the limit. Would you like me to do this?

UNITED NATIONS DRAFT RESOLUTION
Tsunami Warning System
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by:

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

DEEPLY REGRETTING the scale of the loss of life and property due to tsunamis;

AWARE that the some of causes of tsunamis include earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, and celestial impacts, but that the primary danger associated with a tsunami is related to the displacement of water (i.e. waves);

NOTING that these disasters can impact multiple nations at the same time;

EMPHASIZING that the citizens from non-coastal communities may be at risk while on vacation or business in coastal communities;

CONVINCED that by pooling resources to detect potential tsunamis, issue warnings to the areas likely to be impacted, coordinate international aid efforts, and share research related to tsunamis, that nations can better prepare for these disasters;

1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations sponsored and funded Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC), to be staffed by a team of technical experts who can collect and monitor seismic and stage data in order to study the physics related to tsunamis in different locations, identify possible threats to populated areas, and issue warnings in the event of such a threat;

2. REQUESTS member nations to forward seismic data already being collected to the TEWC to aid in its research and monitoring program;

3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have seismic networks work with the TEWC and other nations in order to enhance existing seismic monitoring and planetary and oceanography programs (which can be considered linked to police and emergency response budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

4. AUTHORIZES the TEWC to establish a network of land-based and deep ocean (buoy) sensors to monitor changes in the water surface across the network, in order to confirm possible tsunamis created by earthquakes or volcanic activity as well as to observe and identify tsunamis created by other physical processes that are undetected by seismic waves (such as landslides or large scale impacts);

5. DIRECTS the TEWC to develop a standardized tsunami warning protocol that can be used in member nations that can be easily recognized by citizens and travelers;

6. MANDATES that the TEWC transmit advisory warnings to member nations based on its timely analysis of data collected by both the seismic and water surface monitoring programs;

7. CALLS UPON member nations to provide the TEWC with emergency contact centers that can quickly respond to tsunami warnings issued by the TEWC;

8. REITERATES the need for member nations to develop evacuation and response plans in the event of a tsunami warning by ensuring that adequate emergency response teams and equipment is available to deal with the likely damages associated with a tsunami consistent for that nation;

9. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that in the event of a tsunami disaster that nations will continue to offer humanitarian assistance to affected nations; and

10. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.

Character Count w/ Spaces: 3000
Character Count w/out Spaces: 2541

I added what I hope is what you meant by a standardized warning protocol.

Some minor proofreading/comprehension squibbles, and that's about all. (Words in red should be deleted, words in green are additions or substituted words):

UNITED NATIONS DRAFT RESOLUTION
Tsunami Warning System
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by:

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

DEEPLY REGRETTING the scale of the loss of life and property due to tsunamis;

AWARE that the some of causes of tsunamis include earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, and celestial impacts, but that the primary danger associated with a tsunami is related to the displacement of water (i.e. waves);

NOTING that these disasters can impact multiple nations at the same time;

EMPHASIZING that the citizens from non-coastal communities may be at risk while on vacation or business in coastal communities;

CONVINCED that by pooling resources to detect potential tsunamis, issue issuing warnings to the areas likely to be impacted, coordinate coordinating international aid efforts, and share sharing research related to tsunamis, that nations can better prepare for these disasters;

1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations sponsored and funded Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC), to be staffed by a team of technical experts who can collect and monitor seismic and stage data in order to study the physics related to tsunamis in different locations, identify possible threats to populated areas, and issue warnings in the event of such a threat;

2. REQUESTS member nations to forward seismic data already being collected to the TEWC to aid in its research and monitoring program;

3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have seismic networks work with the TEWC and other nations in order to enhance existing seismic monitoring and planetary and oceanography programs (which can be considered linked to police and emergency response budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

4. AUTHORIZES the TEWC to establish a network of land-based and deep ocean (buoy)s and sensors to monitor changes in the water surface across the network, in order to confirm possible tsunamis created by earthquakes or volcanic activity as well as to observe and identify tsunamis created by other physical processes that are undetected by seismic waves (such as landslides or large scale impacts);

5. DIRECTS the TEWC to develop a standardized tsunami warning protocol that can be used in member nations that can be easily recognized by citizens and travelers;

6. MANDATES that the TEWC transmit advisory warnings to member nations based on its timely analysis of data collected by both the seismic and water surface monitoring programs;

7. CALLS UPON member nations to provide the TEWC with emergency contact centers that can quickly respond to tsunami warnings issued by the TEWC;

8. REITERATES the need for member nations to develop evacuation and response plans in the event of a tsunami warning by ensuring that adequate emergency response teams and equipment is available to deal with the likely damages associated with a tsunami consistent appropriate for that nation;

9. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that in the event of a tsunami disaster that nations will continue to offer humanitarian assistance to affected nations; and

10. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.

Picky editorial comments, I know, but that's what editors are for!

At the current moment, Grosseschnauzer is not in a position to even formally sponsor this as a proposal (ah, the wonders of having been formed in the North Pacific region), but let's see if any other nation has comments.

Excellent editorials.

Are you otherwise happy with the text? If so, I'll update the posts I've submitted to the IDU, ACA, West Pacific, and North Pacific forums.

If you are short of endorsements, the International Democratic Union (home to Groot Gouda and my government -- as well as Adam Island who frequently posts here too) always welcomes new members. :) I'd endorse your government in an instant, and I'm positive the other IDU members would as well.

We are in the process of holding our Delegate election right now, but bottom line is every two months we elect a new Delegate and based on what I've seen here I think you'd like the region.

As for whom should submit the proposal, I think it is between your government, Tejasdom, Groot Gouda, and my government. Whomever proposes it should probably do most of the telegramming, but I have a list of the 133 nations that endorsed Tejasdom's previous attempt in this thread or on the IDU forum (I can't remember which). Even if I don't propose it, I can help out with the telegrams -- except for Tuesday night. (OOC: I'll be going to see the Los Angeles based band Collide play in San Francisco on Tuesday.)

:)

well, somebody submit it and i'll endorse it (i should be delegate for my region again in a couple of hours).

We're satisfied with the latest draft as far as substance.

As far as sponsorship, my inclination is that some other member introduce it. (OOC: I'm having oral surgery on Tuesday, and I have no idea how well my brain will be functioning afterwards or when.)

Grosseschnauzer is currently affilated with a new region composed of ethnic schnauzer nations ;) while waiting to see how the situation in the North Pacific region works itself out. But we'll entertain the suggestion.

We're satisfied with the latest draft as far as substance.

As far as sponsorship, my inclination is that some other member introduce it. (OOC: I'm having oral surgery on Tuesday, and I have no idea how well my brain will be functioning afterwards or when.)

Grosseschnauzer is currently affilated with a new region composed of ethnic schnauzer nations ;) while waiting to see how the situation in the North Pacific region works itself out. But we'll entertain the suggestion.
yeah, that implosion in the north pacific was bad.

any idea what happened to pixiedance?

any idea what happened to pixiedance?

Statements have been posted in off-NS regional forums, but my knowledge of the personalities is too recent, and too limited, to make heads or tails of it.

We're satisfied with the latest draft as far as substance.

As far as sponsorship, my inclination is that some other member introduce it. (OOC: I'm having oral surgery on Tuesday, and I have no idea how well my brain will be functioning afterwards or when.)

Grosseschnauzer is currently affilated with a new region composed of ethnic schnauzer nations ;) while waiting to see how the situation in the North Pacific region works itself out. But we'll entertain the suggestion.

Let's wait til tomorrow then. Groot will certainly be back, and I don't want to rush things, as other people may have suggestions.

I'm hoping for the best from the North Pacific as well. A number of us were originally from there as well.

I had a friend of mine tell me that quake was strong enough to cause a two second pause in the Earth's rotation

Don't believe him. The Earth is rotating at considerable speed, and a pause in that would cause a lot of stuff to start moving quite fast over the surface. The speed was perhaps a little different during the quake but not noticeable.

Best way to try what would happen when the earth suddenly stops rotating is to hop into your car, and drive it into a wall without wearing seatbelts.

, so the freaky weather we're having in Saint Louis isn't that big of a surprise:

Freaky weather is never a surprise. It's actually quite normal to have freaky weather.

It would be constructive for what Grosseschnauzer seeks to accomplish if you suggested specific language that embodies what you percieve as a deficiency. I'm trying my best to find a centrist compromise between your rough draft quoted earlier in the thread and the original proposal. and have something that is practical and not vague.

After thinking for a while, I have concluded that there are two options:
modify this proposal to be more generic and cover all sorts of natural disasters (tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides), or keep this proposal as it is now and create a new resolution to cover other disasters and make that work together with the TEWC, focussing more on land-based disasters.

Considering how far this proposal has already developed, perhaps the second option is best and keeps everybody happy.

I think I should interject in a profesional capasity

It seems that the assumption is that the Tsunami wave can be measured by surface buoys or other instrumentation. I should strongly dissagree. No such sensor exists to effectivly identify a Tsunami wave. Presently the only way to provide warnings for such waves are through seismic sensors on the sea bed. These will transmitt accoustic signals to surface buoys which will mearly relay data to onshore centres. This means that a seismic reading may or may not lead to a tsunami. I think with the recent event it was clear a 9.2 seismic event was definatly lead to a tsunami. There exists a strong chance that warnings are given more often than real tsunami.

I am a little concerned by how the warning would be given to any nation's populous. It appears to me that one of the problems with the recent Tsunami was that warning was given but ignored in the most part. I can not think of a way to ensure that a warning gets effectivly passed on the populus, but this should be concidered.

Oceanographer

Our nation would support this issue, but I would like you to take look at following factors which you might find useful while deciding your vote on that matter.

This issue promotes cooperation between countries and it might actually prove to be useful for saving people from disasters. But I would like to note that when there was a Tsunami in Asia, governments in fact have been warned about it and they had enough time to evacuate the citizens (I have read this in a newspaper). The government itself is to blame for not spending resources for preparing for such situation, and it are the governments that should be influenced mainly. Besides, this system requires a lot of money to install and to run. However, our nation considers that human lives are much more important than money, therefore, you can count on our support on this matter.

I think I should interject in a profesional capasity

It seems that the assumption is that the Tsunami wave can be measured by surface buoys or other instrumentation. I should strongly dissagree. No such sensor exists to effectivly identify a Tsunami wave. Presently the only way to provide warnings for such waves are through seismic sensors on the sea bed. These will transmitt accoustic signals to surface buoys which will mearly relay data to onshore centres. This means that a seismic reading may or may not lead to a tsunami. I think with the recent event it was clear a 9.2 seismic event was definatly lead to a tsunami. There exists a strong chance that warnings are given more often than real tsunami.

Oceanographer

Hello Howzatt,

Though I'm not an oceanographer, I am an engineer, and having reviewed NOAA's DART program, as well as other related information I'm inclined to believe that the technique of studying in real-time tidal residuals calculated using stage data and modeled forecasted stage can at the very least provide a warning when an unexpected wave is passing by. Or in the case of DART can also rule out a seismic based warning when there is no wave.

There are a few links to this papers / discussion sites above, but I'll try and dig them out later.

However, the current draft of this proposal in fact *does* include two things: the creation of a standardized warning system for nations to use and an international center to contact local authorities when the warning should be sounded.

The draft promotes the use of two techniques to detect tsunamis: seismic detection and stage (water level) based observations.

Here is the working copy of the draft:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7906146&postcount=97

1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations sponsored and funded Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC), to be staffed by a team of technical experts who can collect and monitor seismic and stage data in order to study the physics related to tsunamis in different locations, identify possible threats to populated areas, and issue warnings in the event of such a threat;


For your information, my professional work involves using land based stage data from San Francisco to fill in gaps and missing data in a station (Martinez California) which is located roughly 50+ km upstream from NOAA's San Francisco tidal station at Golden Gate Bridge. When the Martinez station (operated by the State of California, Dept. Water Resources) has bad data, we use a Vector Autoregressive Model and astronomical models based on NOAA work to calculate residual tides at both stations and then compare the trends.

If a deep sea buoy network were placed in enough locations (how many, I don't know) a tsumani wave traveling by one station would register as a larger residual difference than an astronomical based forecast stage would. The other stations would not yet see the wave and the residuals would not show this same difference. By looking at all the stations you certainly could tell that there is a wave present in one location and worth looking at.

Finally the DART system has been used to prevent false positives (the link was mentioned earlier, but I'd be happy to dig it up again).

I could be wrong here, but I am basing this on what I've read about NOAA's DART program as well as how I reguarly model stage in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ... of which I'm confident with that part of the process and would be happy to point to papers about the model I described above that is used to fill in missing stage data.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)

-Michael

I think I should interject in a profesional capasity

It seems that the assumption is that the Tsunami wave can be measured by surface buoys or other instrumentation. I should strongly dissagree. No such sensor exists to effectivly identify a Tsunami wave. Presently the only way to provide warnings for such waves are through seismic sensors on the sea bed. These will transmitt accoustic signals to surface buoys which will mearly relay data to onshore centres. This means that a seismic reading may or may not lead to a tsunami. I think with the recent event it was clear a 9.2 seismic event was definatly lead to a tsunami. There exists a strong chance that warnings are given more often than real tsunami.

I am a little concerned by how the warning would be given to any nation's populous. It appears to me that one of the problems with the recent Tsunami was that warning was given but ignored in the most part. I can not think of a way to ensure that a warning gets effectivly passed on the populus, but this should be concidered.

Oceanographer

From what I have read in the media (including the linked article I posted upthread), the current RL system in the RL Pacific Ocean, was in the midst of being expnaded before the recent tsunamis, by the addition of deep ocean floor sensors as well as the bouys to measure changes in surface wave actions. As I understand the information I've read, the information still has to be processed and analyzed to eliminate false alarms, but that's where computers (and the use of models) come in, just as has been the case in tropical cyclone forecasting. Given that earthquake and volcanic event forecasting involve a number of separate technical and feasibility issues, I'd rather those be addressed separately. There is nothing that prevents a later proposal from being developed that builds upon this proposal, if need be.

As to the internal warning systems within each nation, one of the problems seems to be the lack of generally accepted protocols and procedures to handle notifications to the public in a region or regions. Fairly rapid warnings are possible, as far as media broadcasts and other public warning systems, as shown by the systems in place for warnings related to tropical cyclones and tornadoes. One of the objects of the proposal, as I see it, is to provide technical standardization and assistance in the development of such systems where necessary. I'm not a resident, in RL of an area that is covered by the RL tsunami forecast warning system based in Hawaii for the RL Pacific Ocean, but apparently there is some sort of procedure in place that generates warnings to the public, and it has been used.

edited to add, as can be seen Mikitivity and I were both preparing responses to this at the same time, and we have totally different professional backgrounds.

(I'm outta here for the rest of the workday. Mikitivity if you feel comfortable to proceed to submitting the proposal that is fine from this end.)

Hello,

I promised to provide some links to papers where I've worked using astronomical forecasted stage in addition to real observations in order to fill-in and forecast ahead stage at critical locations.

The model for which this stage boundary condition was created is a hydrodynamic estruary model (in this case called the Delta Simulation Model 2). Getting an accurate downstream stage boundary set for the model is critical to not only hydrodynamics, but also to simulating any water quality constituent, since the volume of water that is exchanged between the ocean and the estruary itself is so large.

This first paper was written by a co-worker of mine, who developed this technique as part of his PhD program at UC Berkeley.

http://modeling.water.ca.gov/delta/reports/annrpt/2000/2000Ch8.pdf

The point I've been advocating for is best illustrated in Figure 8-3. Astronomical models and real-time / historical water levels will always be off. The moon / sun / earth system is a significant forcing on the tides, but it is not the only forcing. The difference between the modeled astronomical stage and what we really see is the tidal residual.

My friend then used a vector autoregressive model to forecast into the near future (only a few days to weeks out) the tidal residuals. A vector autoregressive model can be thought of like the more traditional ARMA -- autoregressive / moving average models that we (scientists) use in time series analysis.

Once the residual is forecasted into the future, the astronomical model is added back to the residual.

A recap (in more common terms):

Step 1: Calculate Astronomical Model
Astro Stage Location 1
Astro Stage Location 2
Astro Stage Location 3

Step 2: Grab Real Data
Historical Stage Location 1
Historical Stage Location 2
Historical Stage Location 3

Step 3: Subtract Astro from Real
Residual Stage Location 1
Residual Stage Location 2
Residual Stage Location 3

Step 4: Compare Residuals & Fill / Forecast
Residual Stage Location 2

Step 5: Add Back Astronomical
Forecast Stage at Location 2

In step 4 we only worked with location 2, because for our purposes that is all we needed. But in practice step 3 is the important part. By looking at residuals in various locations we can tell what is happening.

In our estruary, a high or low pressure system *or* storm will impact all of the stage gauges that we are using equally. While I know this is not true for a deep ocean system of stage gauges, I also think that it might not matter. We can *adapt* step 4 (and they do) into something more like this ...

Step 4: Forecast Residuals
Forecast Residual Location 1
Forecast Residual Location 2
Forecast Residual Location 3

Step 5: Compare Residuals
If there is a difference in the residuals that is not normal, that location is flagged and its buoy sensor can autmoatically increase the frequency at which water level data is sampled to allow for better analysis of possible significant changes in water levels at that location.

Most tsunamis are nothing like what happened on Dec. 26, 2004. But it is the more significant ones that will actually travel across oceans and cause damage. I think that although NOAA's DART literature cited the ability to pick up a change in water levels (probably using a methodology similar to what I've outlined above) on the order of cm's, that we can talk about building some sort of network and capture the big events.

The above paper I referenced was the theoretical background for a forecast system I helped to design and use:

http://modeling.water.ca.gov/delta/reports/annrpt/2001/2001Ch12.pdf
http://modeling.water.ca.gov/delta/reports/annrpt/2004/2004Ch8.pdf

While I'm not trying to suggest that the system we use in a tidal estruary can be used to detect tsunamis, I am trying to suggest that the concept behind using:

- Astronomical stage forecasts
- Numerical modeling tools (including ARMA models)
- Real-time stage data

Has proven to be useful in estruary environments and may be adapted to understanding deep ocean or maybe even coastal waves.

The Illuminated Commune of Demographika think that the buoy network is impractical and a waste of money. We are more than happy to support legislation that would increase the response times in the face of natural disasters such as tsunami and the like, but a network of buoys would only marr our coastline. How are these buoys kept in place without a tangling mess of cables that would obstruct maritime trade and logistics?

We do not think that a network of buoys is the way to go about creating a warning system for tsunami events. Better communications standards and an international maritime department would better solve this problem, and for a fraction of the cost and trouble.

I am aware that the earthquake observation systems in place notified American seismologists of the impending tsunami, but they were unable to warn the affected nations because of poor communications standards in the area. Even after contacting their state department, a message could not be sent to the region the tsunami hit.

The Illuminated Commune of Demographika think that the buoy network is impractical and a waste of money. We are more than happy to support legislation that would increase the response times in the face of natural disasters such as tsunami and the like, but a network of buoys would only marr our coastline. How are these buoys kept in place without a tangling mess of cables that would obstruct maritime trade and logistics?

We do not think that a network of buoys is the way to go about creating a warning system for tsunami events. Better communications standards and an international maritime department would better solve this problem, and for a fraction of the cost and trouble.

Did you look at the NOAA links we've provided. Buoy networks are only part of what we are suggesting here, as we've included provisions for a seismic based warning system as well.

Furthermore, the NOAA DART system doesn't involved a "tangling mess of cables". We solved the issues of transmitting data via cables long ago and can use satellites.

Finally, what do you think the cost of a buoy system is? $Thousands? $Millions? $Billions?

In this thread there are a list of papers that document not only the costs of the existing DART network, but examples of how much money the network has saved by eliminating false alarms.

I believe most of your concerns have been answered later in this thread, as to be honest, several other nations have raised the same points and later dropped their opposition when we provided cost data and technical links. I'm hoping that you'll change your mind too when you read what we've put together here. :)

Thanks!
-M

Hello,

I promised to provide some links to papers where I've worked using astronomical forecasted stage in addition to real observations in order to fill-in and forecast ahead stage at critical locations.

The model for which this stage boundary condition was created is a hydrodynamic estruary model (in this case called the Delta Simulation Model 2). Getting an accurate downstream stage boundary set for the model is critical to not only hydrodynamics, but also to simulating any water quality constituent, since the volume of water that is exchanged between the ocean and the estruary itself is so large.

This first paper was written by a co-worker of mine, who developed this technique as part of his PhD program at UC Berkeley.

http://modeling.water.ca.gov/delta/reports/annrpt/2000/2000Ch8.pdf

The point I've been advocating for is best illustrated in Figure 8-3. Astronomical models and real-time / historical water levels will always be off. The moon / sun / earth system is a significant forcing on the tides, but it is not the only forcing. The difference between the modeled astronomical stage and what we really see is the tidal residual.

My friend then used a vector autoregressive model to forecast into the near future (only a few days to weeks out) the tidal residuals. A vector autoregressive model can be thought of like the more traditional ARMA -- autoregressive / moving average models that we (scientists) use in time series analysis.

Once the residual is forecasted into the future, the astronomical model is added back to the residual.

A recap (in more common terms):

Step 1: Calculate Astronomical Model
Astro Stage Location 1
Astro Stage Location 2
Astro Stage Location 3

Step 2: Grab Real Data
Historical Stage Location 1
Historical Stage Location 2
Historical Stage Location 3

Step 3: Subtract Astro from Real
Residual Stage Location 1
Residual Stage Location 2
Residual Stage Location 3

Step 4: Compare Residuals & Fill / Forecast
Residual Stage Location 2

Step 5: Add Back Astronomical
Forecast Stage at Location 2

In step 4 we only worked with location 2, because for our purposes that is all we needed. But in practice step 3 is the important part. By looking at residuals in various locations we can tell what is happening.

In our estruary, a high or low pressure system *or* storm will impact all of the stage gauges that we are using equally. While I know this is not true for a deep ocean system of stage gauges, I also think that it might not matter. We can *adapt* step 4 (and they do) into something more like this ...

Step 4: Forecast Residuals
Forecast Residual Location 1
Forecast Residual Location 2
Forecast Residual Location 3

Step 5: Compare Residuals
If there is a difference in the residuals that is not normal, that location is flagged and its buoy sensor can autmoatically increase the frequency at which water level data is sampled to allow for better analysis of possible significant changes in water levels at that location.

Most tsunamis are nothing like what happened on Dec. 26, 2004. But it is the more significant ones that will actually travel across oceans and cause damage. I think that although NOAA's DART literature cited the ability to pick up a change in water levels (probably using a methodology similar to what I've outlined above) on the order of cm's, that we can talk about building some sort of network and capture the big events.

The above paper I referenced was the theoretical background for a forecast system I helped to design and use:

http://modeling.water.ca.gov/delta/reports/annrpt/2001/2001Ch12.pdf
http://modeling.water.ca.gov/delta/reports/annrpt/2004/2004Ch8.pdf

While I'm not trying to suggest that the system we use in a tidal estruary can be used to detect tsunamis, I am trying to suggest that the concept behind using:

- Astronomical stage forecasts
- Numerical modeling tools (including ARMA models)
- Real-time stage data

Has proven to be useful in estruary environments and may be adapted to understanding deep ocean or maybe even coastal waves.

I see what your suggesting here. and it sounds very interesting in coastal waters. I have a problem with water depth measurements to the accurasy required in deeper water. You'd have to use a 2 axis GPS. The signals are not going to be brilliant in these regions as there would be no local diff station to correct the readings but I can not see how real time tide gauge readings can be made with the necessary frequency and accurasy from another instrument, wave radars could be analturnate option but fixed structures would be required. The issue here is that the wave will pass so rapidly that sensors would miss it's passing and it will not be more than 1 - 2m above the mean sea level and may infact be swamped by other wind waves. If you track the sea surface at a high frequency using for example a RTKGPS or prefereably a Wave radar then this would be nearly practable assuming models are good enough to spot what would normally be a small blip in data being measured.

I still concider the only option is to use seismic detectors on the seafloor.

Just as a comment about an earlier post, if you use local craft warnings then by that time the Tsunami is likley to already be at the coastline as to spot one at sea is very difficult under anything other than calm conditions.

I see what your suggesting here. and it sounds very interesting in coastal waters. I have a problem with water depth measurements to the accurasy required in deeper water. You'd have to use a 2 axis GPS.

They, NOAA and the United States, may already have that level of accuracy. The question as to the accuracy of buoy systems was raised over a week ago and I feel it was answered in this post:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7824495&postcount=38

Here is a direct link included in that post worth commenting on:
http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag153.htm

From the NOAA link I'd like to quote the conclusion:


When the program is completed in 2011, NOAA hopes to have expanded the DART network to a total of 20 sensors. NOAA is also using the DART data to develop inundation models and evacuation maps, which show how far inland tsunami flooding may reach (and possibly how fast the flow of water might be and how long the inundation will last) for the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii. DART is consistent with the other in situ Earth observing technology that is being used to establish a Global Observing System and is essential to fulfilling NOAA's national responsibility for tsunami hazard mitigation and warnings.

I think these are all terribly interesting ideas and worth getting into in a detailed manner ... afterall, we spend too much time in my opinion talking about the UN and issues related to sexual activities. While I don't mind talking about this some of the time, I'd like to show to the NationStates community that the UN can also respond to other problems as well. :)


The issue here is that the wave will pass so rapidly that sensors would miss it's passing and it will not be more than 1 - 2m above the mean sea level and may infact be swamped by other wind waves.

The article is suggesting accuracy to 1 cm, as highlighted in my earlier post (again linked above).

You'll also see that Asshelmetta and I were actually looking at the raw data from one of the DART buoys.


I still concider the only option is to use seismic detectors on the seafloor.


The proposal actually already includes a clause that addresses seismic analysis.

Some information about the RL tsunami warning system and some developments in reviewing satellite data and the south Asian tsunamis and their worldwide effect:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2365.htm

I will support this proposal in every way I can.

Are there going to be systems set up to dectect every type of natural disaster all over the world then? If not then why set up just tsunami dectection systems for a select few?

Are there going to be systems set up to dectect every type of natural disaster all over the world then? If not then why set up just tsunami dectection systems for a select few?

There are other forms of natural disasters that do not carry the potential risk of Tsunami formation. The parties engaged in the development of this proposal are limiting the scope of this proposal to incorporate those elements that could give rise to tsunami formation and precautionary warnings for those conditions.

There's nothing to say that a later proposal or series of proposals might be appropriate for other types of natural disasters. This proposal builds upon previous adoopted resolutions concerning the International Red Cross and the tracking of near Earth objects; other nations are certainly free to build upon this proposal, should it make it to the floor and be adopted.

In fact Groot Gouda and Rehochipe have both been advocating that our tsunami resolution be broadend as well.

Groot even drafted up something, and I'll ask their nation to present their draft here.

There is little doubt in my mind that we can get the present resolution to the UN floor and I would hope it would pass.

The question is, do we want to make additional resolutions for other natural disasters (my government thinks so) or think about making a comprehensive resolution (other respected governments think so). I think we should spend a day or two discussing this, but I think Groot Gouda's draft proposal should be presented here as a comparision.

I think there is always room for both, but I am actually very pleased with how much feedback and participation this entire process has had. :) It is very public, and open. Something that the UN is about.

In fact Groot Gouda and Rehochipe have both been advocating that our tsunami resolution be broadend as well.

Groot even drafted up something, and I'll ask their nation to present their draft here.

There is little doubt in my mind that we can get the present resolution to the UN floor and I would hope it would pass.

The question is, do we want to make additional resolutions for other natural disasters (my government thinks so) or think about making a comprehensive resolution (other respected governments think so). I think we should spend a day or two discussing this, but I think Groot Gouda's draft proposal should be presented here as a comparision.

I think there is an unbendable practical consideration, which is the character limit imposed by the game mechanics on the size of proposals. Unfortunately a more comprehensive proposal would require some additional detail to cover other contingencies not relevant to a tsunami situation. There is also a practical political consideration that is two-fold. It will be harder to pass a complex comprehensive proposa;, and by moving forward on the tsunami resolution first, we can build upon it on issues involving other natural disasters.

Hopefully, that more clearly states what Grosseschnauzer was trying to say before.

I think there is an unbendable practical consideration, which is the character limit imposed by the game mechanics on the size of proposals. Unfortunately a more comprehensive proposal would require some additional detail to cover other contingencies not relevant to a tsunami situation. There is also a practical political consideration that is two-fold. It will be harder to pass a complex comprehensive proposa;, and by moving forward on the tsunami resolution first, we can build upon it on issues involving other natural disasters.

Hopefully, that more clearly states what Grosseschnauzer was trying to say before.

*big grin*

That opinion has also been expressed to me as well. Bottom line, I think we are all in agreement that we've got a good working proposal and that we'd all like to work together.

I asked Groot whom should sponsor the current proposal, as I feel it falls between your nation, Groot's, mine, and of course Tejasdom. In any event, I'll be able to telegram some tonight an oodles tomorrow night.

*big grin*

That opinion has also been expressed to me as well. Bottom line, I think we are all in agreement that we've got a good working proposal and that we'd all like to work together.

I asked Groot whom should sponsor the current proposal, as I feel it falls between your nation, Groot's, mine, and of course Tejasdom. In any event, I'll be able to telegram some tonight an oodles tomorrow night.

OOC: Grosseschnauzer has moved back into the North Pacific region for the time being so it could collect at least two endorsements, which it now has. In the event we can't reach Tejasdom, or they're not willing, then Grosseschnauzer will agree to be the sponsor of record; however, my typing time will be at a minimum because of the medications I'm taking as a result of the oral surgery yesterday. If y'all can handle the telegrams, I can handle being sponsor of record if needed. (If there's space, we'll note that the draft is a joint product of the four nations by short name.) I think it needs to get up as it's allready Wednesday night (US time). Send me a TG if you want Grosseschnauizer to be sponsoir of record.
And since the title is slightly different, do we keep using this thread or do we have to start a new one in this forum?

OOC: Grosseschnauzer has moved back into the North Pacific region for the time being so it could collect at least two endorsements, which it now has. In the event we can't reach Tejasdom, or they're not willing, then Grosseschnauzer will agree to be the sponsor of record; however, my typing time will be at a minimum because of the medications I'm taking as a result of the oral surgery yesterday. If y'all can handle the telegrams, I can handle being sponsor of record if needed. (If there's space, we'll note that the draft is a joint product of the four nations by short name.) I think it needs to get up as it's allready Wednesday night (US time). Send me a TG if you want Grosseschnauizer to be sponsoir of record.
And since the title is slightly different, do we keep using this thread or do we have to start a new one in this forum?

OOC: In case you've not read the telegram yet, I'm thinking that it would be nice if you could sponsor the resolution. Groot can sponsor the second one. You and Groot have contributed a great deal to this effort, and I've got Mikitivity's name on three resolutions (and another reference is hidden inside somebody else's as an easter egg). ;)

The important thing to me is having a quality resolution, and I have a big soft spot for prevention and/or humanitarian aid resolutions. I'll just list Groot and myself as co-authors on the IDU archive (not the same as the UNA archive).

Personally, it gives me pleasure to work with a nation from the North Pacific, as one of my resolutions was penned while a native myself. The North Pacific has a long history of great resolutions and though it also is full of political intrique and drama (which makes the game fun, though stressful for the natives) it is plain and simple the region of wild dreams and new ideas.

Telegram me when it is submitted, and I'll start a telegramming campaign tomorrow. Like you, I'm dead tired today. :) Last night I was in San Francisco to see Collide and Drop Black Sky and didn't get home til 2 am ... and had to walk up early for a public hearing where some of my work was being presented (sadly my data was cut out due to time, but it will be presented tomorrow in depth -- which I prefer).

It will be harder to pass a complex comprehensive proposa;, and by moving forward on the tsunami resolution first, we can build upon it on issues involving other natural disasters.

Those considerations have been expressed in my region, where we are discussing a second more general proposal, as well. A tsunami resolution has high chances of getting passed, even if the content is only that "tsunami's are, like, bad, and should be outlawed, man". A second resolution could ride the positive wave of the first tsunami resolution.

I'll give my own resolution text here:
Natural Disaster System
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

DEEPLY REGRETTING loss of life and material damages as a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods, etc,

NOTING that these disasters do not stop at national borders,

OBSERVING the Tsunami Emergency Warning Centre as instituted by the Tsunami Warning System,

NOTING that this resolution has limited effect for other natural disasters,

ALSO NOTING that the measures implemented by this resolution can and should be used for further research and development of natural disaster warning systems,

1. ESTABLISHES a Natural Disaster Assessment Organization (NDAO) which has the following tasks:
a. Conduct research on natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods, etc
b. Coordinate international cooperation on this field, in scientific research and in practical solutions
c. Creates protocols for warning about possible disasters and evacuation plans
d. Maintains contacts with local authorities and local organisations in order to improve communication of information about possible natural disasters and how to respond to these.

2. URGES all nations to contribute financially to the NDAO,

3. URGES all nations to establish and fund a National Geological Survey which can conduct research and create warning systems,

4. REQUESTS that member nations share their geological and other relevant data with other countries and the NDAO,

5. CALLS UPON all nations to provide care and assistance in case of a natural disaster, by themselves or through recognized UN organisations such as the International Red Cross

As long as people and nations pay attention, I suppose we can discuss both ideas in the same thread. In the meantime, a final draft of the revised resolution on the tsunami warning system has been submitted for approval. 145 approvals are required.

Tsunami Warning System

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Grosseschnauzer

Description: The NationStates United Nations,


DEEPLY REGRETTING the scale of the loss of life and property due to tsunamis;

AWARE that the some of causes of tsunamis include earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, and celestial impacts, but that the primary danger associated with a tsunami is related to the displacement of water (i.e. waves);

NOTING that these disasters can impact multiple nations at the same time;

EMPHASIZING that the citizens from non-coastal communities may be at risk while on vacation or business in coastal communities;

CONVINCED that by pooling resources to detect potential tsunamis, issuing warnings to the areas likely to be impacted, coordinating international aid efforts, and sharing research related to tsunamis, that nations can better prepare for these disasters;

1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations sponsored and funded Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC), to be staffed by a team of technical experts who can collect and monitor seismic and stage data in order to study the physics related to tsunamis in different locations, identify possible threats to populated areas, and issue warnings in the event of such a threat;

2. REQUESTS member nations to forward seismic data already being collected to the TEWC to aid in its research and monitoring program;

3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have seismic networks work with the TEWC and other nations in order to enhance existing seismic monitoring and planetary and oceanography programs (which can be considered linked to police and emergency response budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

4. AUTHORIZES the TEWC to establish a network of land-based and deep ocean buoys and sensors to monitor changes in the water surface across the network, in order to confirm possible tsunamis created by earthquakes or volcanic activity as well as to observe and identify tsunamis created by other physical processes that are undetected by seismic waves (such as landslides or large scale impacts);

5. DIRECTS the TEWC to develop a standardized tsunami warning protocol that can be used in member nations that can be easily recognized by citizens and travelers;

6. MANDATES that the TEWC transmit advisory warnings to member nations based on its timely analysis of data collected by both the seismic and water surface monitoring programs;

7. CALLS UPON member nations to provide the TEWC with emergency contact centers that can quickly respond to tsunami warnings issued by the TEWC;

8. REITERATES the need for member nations to develop evacuation and response plans in the event of a tsunami warning by ensuring that adequate emergency response teams and equipment is available to deal with the likely damages associated with a tsunami appropriate for that nation;

9. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that in the event of a tsunami disaster that nations will continue to offer humanitarian assistance to affected nations; and

10. ASKS that member nations work with the International Red Cross Organization to coordinate international tsunami relief efforts.


Based upon an original proposal by Tejasdom, with subsequent contributions by Mikitivity, Grosseschnauzer, and Groot Gouda.

Tejasdom's original proposal had 134 or so endorsements. I'll begin telegramming tonight and should be able to reach those nations.

It just occured to me that Tejasdom's first two part proposal had about 93 or so approvals, but I never had the time to check to see if all of them approved his second proposal that garnered 134 approvals. That might help make up the 11 or 12 additional approvals, as well.

Yup, last time it was so very close:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7858901&postcount=67

I've sent out a few telegrams already, but I'm working from a different list. It would be very appropriate to use the above endorsement list as a sort of shopping list.

The proposal can be found at:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/49245/page=UN_proposal/start=70

Yup, last time it was so very close:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7858901&postcount=67

I've sent out a few telegrams already, but I'm working from a different list. It would be very appropriate to use the above endorsement list as a sort of shopping list.

The proposal can be found at:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/49245/page=UN_proposal/start=70

That was the second one. Here's the list (from page 4 of this thread) of the original endorsements:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7829650&postcount=44

Originally Posted by Tejasdoms' proposal
Approvals: 93 (Tejasdom, Duplek, Docekaheedron, Real Sylvania, JS Nijmegen, Metal Poets, Yafor 2, Miraflores, Pilot, Dominicalius, Dafidutopia, New Larson, La Commune Quebecoise, Squirrelmania, WZ Forums, Tallylandia, DougIsGodLand, Thatlandia, Bradley Latham, Yelda, SovietRepublicofRussia, Groot Gouda, Riversland, Mescania, Jebusan, Alatun, Guardom, Astriana, Julio Trigman, Ossaca, North Central America, United Land of Liberty, Czech Minutemen, Andorista, Mikeswill, The Dancing Butterfly, Steenia, Doyel, Watari, Baribeau, Anaximanderin, Saqqara, Eridanus, Wezep, Morrissette, Cheer and Love, Ataraxics, ---Narnia, Korudhrim, Hellieville, Butang, Staunch, Justifiable Genocide, Jebusmt, Wolfenlands, The Derrak Quadrant, Palteau, Danitoria, Easy-Going, Atlantic Districts, Patrick6h, DragonSpeartopia, Perchance, Certifiable Psychos, Catanacia, BearNation, Tuonela, Master Tom, Immortallia, Euston, Nethala, Hockey Fandom, War Child, Squallas, Pimps Have Seven Lives, Orlia, Information Traders, Tekania, New Cyberia, Novus Terra Reborn, East Sibir, PintoBerg, Anjali, The Enterprise D, Natashagrad, LouFerringoland, Cameleo, Mettatron, Nazi Aurelia, Flaime, Tomzilla, Soft Meeps, Oniram)

OOC: It might take me a while with the meds and such, but I'll see if I can reconcile the two lists into one for you and TG it to you with whatever list you are using.
That way I can be of some use with the aching head and jaw!

Semi-bump, semi-good luck with gaining approvals!

I've been looking forward to this one coming to quorum. I hope it's finally its time.

Please approve the "Tsunami Warning System"!

Found it.

Endorsed it.

Thanks to Powerhungry Chipmunks and to Asshelmetta for their endorsements.

OOC: It appears that RL including the RL UN is catching up to the idea of a global tsunami warning system:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=2&u=/nm/20050113/pl_nm/quake_bush_plan_dc

OOC: It appears that RL including the RL UN is catching up to the idea of a global tsunami warning system:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=2&u=/nm/20050113/pl_nm/quake_bush_plan_dc


Wow! That is pretty cool.

With the system update, the proposal can be found as follows for Friday:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/03402/page=UN_proposal/start=45
(It's page 10 of the proposals queue.)

Additional details to the expansion of the RL tsunami warning system, including an estimate of cost:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20050114/pl_nm/quake_bush_dc

Might I suggest that we not only put them around the nations that are the most in danger but also around all coastal nations.
How Far are the buoys arpart from each other?
Are they able to be run over by ships?

I am currently in favour of this proposal.
Good job!



Godspeed,
Klaus S. Brenson
Newly Elected Prime Minister

ps- Vladimir resigned

The proposal17 more votes

Might I suggest that we not only put them around the nations that are the most in danger but also around all coastal nations.
How Far are the buoys arpart from each other?
Are they able to be run over by ships?


The intention of the sponsoring group of nations is to leave the technical planning to the technical experts. Grosseschnauzer is satisfied however, that the overall cost of installation of a global bouy and sensor network, coupled with the other hardware requirements would not leave any nation with a coastline subject to a risk of a tsunami exposure without monitoring being available. We would recommend that you read the online media articles and look at the links posted by Grosseschnauzer at the bottom of page 9 of this discussion thread:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20050114/pl_nm/quake_bush_dc
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=2&u=/nm/20050113/pl_nm/quake_bush_plan_dc

There are animations at this link that shows how a major tsunami event can be observed worldwide. The number anf location of the new sensors and bouys will be determined by the technical experts.

From what Grosseschnauzer understands, Bouys are marked on navigational charts used in international shipping and sailing, as are other devices used for navigational and scientific purposes; the deep water sensors are placed on the deep ocean floor and are not affected by water traffic.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2365.htm

We hope this answers your questions. Should the proposal obtain sufficient approvals to meet quorum requirements, we plan to post information explaining the resolution during this coming week. Some of the ambassadors are away at the moment, and their participation is necessary to prepare the explanatory material.

Approvals: 144 (Adam Island, The Elysian HolyEmpire, Markodonia, WZ Forums, Real Sylvania, Liberal Fascism, Rouyn, Three Spinning Legs, Zapvilla, Radioactive Turkeys, Peaonusahl, Korudhrim, Kemdoph, The Dancing Butterfly, Lumbee, Galaxy Bright Star, The Teejinator, Knuckles Promised Land, Tiber City, The Golden Bodhisattva, Domintora, Rusiennne, Mescania, Martha Stewart prisonr, Novus Terra Reborn, Ophainia, Dahlk, Aylandlandfive, Desertica, Thrope, The devine one, Luna Amore, Gunzs, Archduke Lucian, DragonSpeartopia, Zomnkeria, Cheer and Love, Archoz, Hidlberg, Yelda, The Bruce, Steenia, JS Nijmegen, Ueberwald, Trastarian, New Cyberia, Gaiah, Styrland, ApathysAffliction, Wherramaharasinghastan, Kingsey, No power structure, Tuonela, Mikeswill, Palteau, Maubachia, ---Narnia, Hellieville, Scylding, Riegab, Hessen Nassau, President Gary, Krisalan II, Graceland in Memphis, Al-Zar, Massive Mechanical, Wortegem-Petegem, The Catalan Counties, Pixiedance, Optima Justitia, Squirrelmania, Faithful Servants, Sinns right hand, Mikeytown, Eaglitus, Baribeau, Concerted Socialists, Ormira, High Spiritus, Silly Sharks, Eyeflashia, Aztec National League, Arore Silvertongue, La Tropicana, Oniram, New York Jet Fanatics, Catanacia, Horny Sexy People, Justice and Democracy, The Derrak Quadrant, Xqm, FoxTopia, Shanagolia, Jake 4, New Larson, Justifiable Genocide, Clintoned, Trinosia, Ryiak, Wolfenlands, Hurtux, Master Tom, Dangertk, Venerable libertarians, Gnometasia, Buaness, Racoonesia, Docekaheedron, Pottervillia, The disillusioned many, Pulled Pork, Morrissette, Voltairea, Coomleagh, SSsEva, Mettatron, JayRoddia, Self-proclaimed Colony, The Bitter Rose, Le Pickles, Metal Poets, Ator People, Culex, Riversland, SuperVegeta, Bijanian Utopia, Guarafiana, Asshelmetta, Spurland, Stansfeldland, Albion and Arcadia, Noazia, Shandus, Sabbe, Zippino, Hadlow Bostoft, Kaytheer, Ariddia, Maltese Falcon, Economic growing, North-Baltia, Easy-Going, Borgoa, Great Morganton)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

On behalf of the sponsoring nations involved in the development of the resolution, Grosseschnauzer extends its thanks to all of the nations that endorsed the "Tsunami Warning System" proposal so the resolution can go the floor of the United Nations for a vote.

Congratulations, and I am sure my delegate and my fellow regional UN members of the International Democratic Union will vote in favour of this resolution.

After this resolution is passed (which it surely will), my nation will start promoting a resolution to cover other disasters in cooperation with this resolution.

Champagne!

I will have to admit that I havn't read too much into this. But the way I see it this proposal is too rash. What I mean is there has been an awful tsunami disaster, so people have thought "oh my god!! we must think of a way to stop this happening again", that is a fine view to take but they havn't really thought it through much.

Geologists, Earthquake specialists whatever the hell you want to call them, had a good idea there would be a tsunami. Thousands if not millions of 'egg heads' round the world were comparing data a minute after the earthquake had happened.

Basically, the best way to predict a tsunami is to look at the place an earthquake took place and the size of it, which we already have the technology to do. In the disaster this happened but look how many people still died! The bottom line is no more scientific measuring systems are needed. Especiall ones detecting tsunamies - because a tsunami starts as a ripple and is barely detectable.

The way to reduce the death toll is to spend more money on quick evacuation plans, warnings on the television and radio, sirens, whatever it takes to tell people to get to high ground! The only people that saved themselves from the disaster were locals that knew earthquake = tsunami.

Come on guys is this really a necessary resolution??

I will have to admit that I havn't read too much into this. But the way I see it this proposal is too rash. What I mean is there has been an awful tsunami disaster, so people have thought "oh my god!! we must think of a way to stop this happening again", that is a fine view to take but they havn't really thought it through much.

Geologists, Earthquake specialists whatever the hell you want to call them, had a good idea there would be a tsunami. Thousands if not millions of 'egg heads' round the world were comparing data a minute after the earthquake had happened.

Basically, the best way to predict a tsunami is to look at the place an earthquake took place and the size of it, which we already have the technology to do. In the disaster this happened but look how many people still died! The bottom line is no more scientific measuring systems are needed. Especiall ones detecting tsunamies - because a tsunami starts as a ripple and is barely detectable.

The way to reduce the death toll is to spend more money on quick evacuation plans, warnings on the television and radio, sirens, whatever it takes to tell people to get to high ground! The only people that saved themselves from the disaster were locals that knew earthquake = tsunami.

Come on guys is this really a necessary resolution??
Read the first billion posts in this thread - it's necessary and cheap, and your points are covered.

Grosseschaunzer[sp], sorry if I didn't last long enough as a delegate for my endorsement to help carry the resolution over the threshold. Congratulations, and rest assured whoever the delegate of my region is when this comes up to vote will vote in favor. As will I.

A historical note for the record:

On 6 January 2005, after the original Tejasdom proposal submitted on 26 December 2004 came short of sufficent endorsements, and in an effort to assist in the development of a resolution that wasn't divided into two parts, as the original proposal was, Grosseschnauzer telegraphed the following suggested rewrite of that original proposal to Tejasdom so that the second proposal would come within the character limit for the text of a proposal. What follows was the suggested redraft. While the second proposal as drafted by Tejasdom was not in the preferred format for UN resolutions, it did incorporate elements of these editing suggestions:

Global Tsunami Detection and Warning System

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Strength: Mild

Proposed by:

Description: Global Sensor and Buoy Network for Early Tsunami Detection and Warning

In response to recent tsunami catastrophes, the General Assembly:

RECOGNIZING that future massive tsunami disasters would have far-reaching effects on all nations, not only nations having ocean coastlines.

RECOGNIZING that especially in many poorer regions, there are nations that lack the funds to construct and maintain an appropriate detection system in their territory, in their territorial waters, or in international waters; and that, as a result, when tsunami waves approached a coast, there has been no prior warning whatsoever, and further, that affected nations are unable to take necessary precautions to prevent excessive loss of life and property;

ESTABLISHES a global network of land-based and deep ocean sensors and water surface buoys to provide an early evacuation warning for people in low-lying coastal areas, comprised of the following elements:

1. A network of deep ocean sensors and ocean surface buoys, to be constructed and maintained around separate perimeters that are 800 km (497 mi), 1600 km (994 mi), and 3200 km (1,988 mi) away from the respective coastlines, as appropriate. The network would provide data that generates advance warning of approximately one hour, two hours, and four hours to nations that may be affected by incoming tsunami waves, based upon an average speed of 800 km/hr (497 mi/hr). Water surface buoys, and deep ocean and land sensors are to be placed in areas of volcanic or tectonic plate activity, and in territorial and international waters, as determined by technical experts. The global network is to be built in collaboration with any pre-existing sensor and buoy systems of various nations. Unrestricted access to the data from the sensor and buoy network shall be provided to nations that have established, or choose to establish, their own tsunami monitoring or emergency warning centers.

2.A network of coastal land data receivers and satellites be established and maintained (in collaboration with existing coastal receiver and satellite systems) to continuously monitor data transmitted from the sensors and buoy network. and transmit such data to a United Nations Tsunami Early Warning Center.

3. The United Nations Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) is created. A team of technical experts will staff the center at all times to continuously monitor data and evaluate incoming data. In the event that TEWC identifies a possible or imminent disaster, TEWC will issue a warning advisory and transmit all pertinent seismic and ocean current data to any nation that may be affected by an incoming tsunami. National governments can then act to evacuate its citizens and take other precautions as they see fit. The TEWC will also transmit the warning advisory to the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO), so the IRCO may prepare an emergency response team in the event of a tsunami disaster, and if possible, provide assistance to nations that may be directly affected in the implementation of local precautionary plans.

DETERMINES that initial funding for construction of the system is to be contributed by ALL member nations; however, after the initial construction of the system elements, the cost of maintaining and monitoring the systems shall fall on coastal nations subject to a risk of a tsunami disaster.

DIRECTS that an international convention of coastal nations be convened to determine a funding contribution formula, establish standard international warning protocols, and provide assistance for all coastal nations at risk of tsunami disasters in the development and training for a response procedure.

Proposal by the Dominion of Tejasdom, with contributions by the Confederated City States of Mikitivity and the Federation of Grosseschnauzer.