The JMA is top notch, no argument here. I didn't 'disregard' their warning, I just made a claim that the tsunami was unlikely to be major. This probably wasn't evident when the JMA's warning was made because it takes a while for the seismic waves to reach a broad-enough distribution of stations to confidently determine the type of earthquake.
In reply to many of the comments about tsunami height: A 1-2 m tsunami is a moderate tsunami, not a major tsunami. It can be very damaging to coastal infrastructure depending on the tide, the incidence angle of the waves, and other local factors, but it's simply not in the same magnitude as the major tsunamis that accompany M8+ subduction zone earthquakes.
Also, the measured amplitude of a tsunami will vary locally depending on the distance from the source and the geometry of the submarine topography: some areas focus the waves and the tsunami will be much higher, while some areas can spread the tsunami waves out. It's very similar to how a sound may be louder or quieter based on how far one is from the source of the sound and what's in between (walls of certain orientations, trees, etc.).
In reply to many of the comments about tsunami height: A 1-2 m tsunami is a moderate tsunami, not a major tsunami. It can be very damaging to coastal infrastructure depending on the tide, the incidence angle of the waves, and other local factors, but it's simply not in the same magnitude as the major tsunamis that accompany M8+ subduction zone earthquakes.
Also, the measured amplitude of a tsunami will vary locally depending on the distance from the source and the geometry of the submarine topography: some areas focus the waves and the tsunami will be much higher, while some areas can spread the tsunami waves out. It's very similar to how a sound may be louder or quieter based on how far one is from the source of the sound and what's in between (walls of certain orientations, trees, etc.).