It's a three-tier system, I was confused when I was looking at it. The fourth item is "threat" which you would think is higher than "warning", but "threat" is only used outside of the US.

HN has good SnR generally, but I would default to trusting their automated system more than Random Internet Guy. Even if the warning gets canceled after measurements become available.

I'm a Random Internet Guy who is a professional in the field (earthquake hazards, not tsunamis in particular).

You definitely sound like it. But man, I've met some convincing liars online so I try to be cautious when someone makes claims and I have no proof that they are who they claim to be (especially when they didn't make that claim explicitly, and just sound very intelligent).

It's a complication that will never happen, but sometimes I think it would be cool if HN had a way of authenticating experts and giving them flair. So many legit smart people here.

Based on the travel time map, and that the earthquake event was just 45 mi SW of Eureka, CA (and potentially closer to the coastline elsewhere), it seems that jumping straight to Tsunami Warning is the most appropriate messaging, given that the expected time to impact is quite short?

https://www.tsunami.gov/events/PAAQ/2024/12/05/so1aq0/1/WEAK...

(Some of my job requires me to deal with natural disaster public warnings; but not tsunami specifically)

(I'm late to the party. The warning has since been cancelled: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california-earthquakes-tsuna...)