[scas]

Royal Society Stunner: “Observations suggest that the ongoing rise in global average temperatures may already be eliciting a hazardous response from the geosphere.”
Top scientists call for research on climate link to volcanoes, earthquakes, landslides and tsunamis
April 19, 2010
Periods of exceptional climate change in Earth history are associated with a dynamic response from the solid Earth, involving enhanced levels of potentially hazardous geological and geomorphological activity. This response is expressed through the adjustment, modulation or triggering of a wide range of surface and crustal phenomena, including volcanic and seismic activity, submarine and sub-aerial landslides, tsunamis and landslide ’splash’ waves glacial outburst and rock-dam failure floods, debris flows and gas-hydrate destabilisation. Looking ahead, modelling studies and projection of current trends point towards increased risk in relation to a spectrum of geological and geomorphological hazards in a world warmed by anthropogenic climate change, while observations suggest that the ongoing rise in global average temperatures may already be eliciting a hazardous response from the geosphere.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/19/g ... cientists/

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 8/1919.toc

Guillas et al. present the results of a statistical study of a putative correlation between contemporary variations in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the occurrence of earthquakes on the East Pacific Rise (EPR). The authors observe a significant (95% confidence interval) positive influence of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) on seismicity, and propose that increased seismicity on the EPR arises due to the reduced sea levels in the eastern Pacific that precede El Niño events, and which can be explained in terms of the reduction in ocean-bottom pressure over the EPR by a few kilopascals. Guillas et al. note that this provides an example of how variations in the atmosphere and hydrosphere can drive very small changes in environmental conditions that are able, in turn, to trigger a response from the Earth’s crust. Most importantly, they speculate that, in a warmer world, comparable and larger changes associated with ocean loading due to global sea level rise, or unloading associated with the passage of more intense storms, may trigger more significant earthquake activity at submarine fault systems that are in a critical state.

[Homesteader]

Royal Society Stunner: “Observations suggest that the ongoing rise in global average temperatures may already be eliciting a hazardous response from the geosphere.”
... and gas-hydrate destabilisation.

Uh oh.

[Asterisk]

No.

Brilliant argument. You convinced me!!

DB, I found the article that I was referring to:

Melting ice masses change the pressures on the underlying earth, which can lead to earthquakes and tsunamis, but that’s just the beginning. Rising seas also change the balance of mass across earth’s surface, putting new strain on old earthquake faults,

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-11 ... looks-like

[rockdoc123]

without doubt this is the most ill-informed load of claptrap I have had the pain of witnessing on this site.
The cause of earthquakes in Japan is extremely well researched and well understood, and has been since the mid-sixties. It has absolutely nothing to do with "global warming", ice melting, the moon's influence, the color of chickens gizzards or how much hair horses have grown this winter.
The science of earthquakes associated with subduction zones has been studied much longer than climate, it is well thought out and well founded science, done by the whose who of plate tectonic research. And yes, they are no more frequent now or more intense than they ever were.
I'm sitting in my home office and across from me sits a book compiled in the late sixties called Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic Reversals, edited by one of the people who shaped the face of our current understanding of plate tectonics, Allan Cox. Inside there is a paper that deals specifically with earthquake frequency in the subduction zone around Japan and the causes (written in 1967)...all of which has to do with the subduction of oceanic plate created at a spreading centre. There are essentially 3 mechanisms here but all are extensional/tensional stesses. The accumulation of stress and subsequent release results in the earthquakes. The more stress accumulated the bigger the earthquake when it is released.
Earthquakes of this size have been common throughout recorded history and long before any notion of AGW. Indeed the Asians were well known for using the first method of earthquake prediction...crickets who responded early to impending earthquakes) It is completely unrelated and the fact that some people here want to draw some ridiculous pseudo-scientific conclusion says much about those same persons understanding about science in general which includes the science of climate change.
My suggestion is that before you start spouting off theories you might actually do some reading on the subject.

[Homesteader]

No, global warming was not "the cause" of the earthquake.

What I have found interesting is the research that has been posted and linked regarding the effects of mass distribution change.

So, good thread, despite rocky's usual heavy handed arrogant reply.

[Fishman]

Yea, damn you Rocket for introducing fact and science into a discussion about liberals' religion.

[dohboi]

Well, since rocdc is ill informed about the most uniformly accepted ideas about the most important scientific issue of our time, I find myself disinclined to consider his views on pretty much anything else as particularly valid.

[Keith_McClary]

without doubt this is the most ill-informed load of claptrap I have had the pain of witnessing on this site.
The cause of earthquakes in Japan is extremely well researched and well understood, and has been since the mid-sixties.
...
Inside there is a paper that deals specifically with earthquake frequency in the subduction zone around Japan and the causes (written in 1967)...all of which has to do with the subduction of oceanic plate created at a spreading centre. There are essentially 3 mechanisms here but all are extensional/tensional stesses.

So we should pay no attention to this newfangled 2010 quackery from the journal pompously named "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society": Climate forcing of geological and geomorphological hazards

There is strong evidence for a crustal response to the rapidly changing post-glacial climate being elicited by load changes, either as a consequence of unloading at high latitudes and high altitudes due to ice-mass wastage, or as a result of the loading of ocean basins and continental margins in response to a 100 m or more rise in global sea level. The following three papers address the influence of load changes in the context of the triggering of seismicity and volcanism. In the first, Guillas et al. present the results of a statistical study of a putative correlation between contemporary variations in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the occurrence of earthquakes on the East Pacific Rise (EPR). The authors observe a significant (95% confidence interval) positive influence of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) on seismicity, and propose that increased seismicity on the EPR arises due to the reduced sea levels in the eastern Pacific that precede El Niño events, and which can be explained in terms of the reduction in ocean-bottom pressure over the EPR by a few kilopascals. Guillas et al. note that this provides an example of how variations in the atmosphere and hydrosphere can drive very small changes in environmental conditions that are able, in turn, to trigger a response from the Earth’s crust. Most importantly, they speculate that, in a warmer world, comparable and larger changes associated with ocean loading due to global sea level rise, or unloading associated with the passage of more intense storms, may trigger more significant earthquake activity at submarine fault systems that are in a critical state.

Continuing the theme, Hampel et al. take a broader look at how faults have responded to variations in ice and water volumes as a consequence of past climate change. Using numerical models, the authors demonstrate that climate-driven changes in ice and water volume are able to affect the slip evolution of both thrust and normal faults, with—in general—both the slip rate and the seismicity of a fault increasing with unloading and decreasing with loading. Adopting a case-study approach, Hampel and colleagues provide evidence for a widespread, post-glacial, seismic response on faults located beneath decaying ice sheets or glacial lakes. Looking ahead, the authors point to the implications of their results for ice-mass loss at high latitudes, and speculate that shrinkage of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as a consequence of anthropogenic warming could result in a rise in the frequency of earthquakes in these regions.

In a similar vein, Sigmundsson et al. evaluate the influence of climate-driven ice loading and unloading on volcanism, focusing on Iceland and, in particular, on the Vatnajökull ice cap. Noting that a significant pulse of volcanism in Iceland, at the end of the last glaciation, flags a link between unloading and volcanism, the authors model the effects of contemporary ice-mass loss at Vatnajökull on future magmatic activity. Using a viscoelastic model of glacio-isostatic adjustment that incorporates melt generation in the underlying mantle, Sigmundsson and co-authors predict that ice wastage will result in additional magma generation beneath Iceland. The authors expect more frequent or more voluminous volcanic activity to be a consequence of enhanced melt generation, but also observe that it could take longer than decades or centuries for the resulting magma to reach the surface. Sigmundsson et al. also show that ice unloading is likely to drive shallow magma reservoirs progressively towards failure, although this effect will be small and therefore contribute only to modulating ‘normal’ activity.

The author gives his email: [email protected] in case you want to learn him the trooth.

[Keith_McClary]

the way gravitational pull works is, as the square of the distance. 7% closer = 14.5% greater force, pulling on the 2 plates that comprise the San Andreas fault, for example.

The gravitational pull of the Moon would not stress the Earth, only the gradient of the gravitational field would have such effects. That drops off much faster than the inverse square law. I think the effect would be insignificant (someone must have done the math ).

Jupiter's gravity gradient has such effects on it's moons - tidal deformations heat them measurably.

[Homesteader]

Yea, damn you Rocket for introducing fact and science into a discussion about liberals' religion.

So as far as you and rocky are concerned, the advancement of scientific understanding of pretty much everything ended in 1967. Everything after that is liberal religion. Got it.

Bawhaaaaaaa!

[Quinny]

* - You asked a question. I gave you my answer/opinion?

OK in my opinion all systems are in some way linked, and I do believe that our abuse of the earth is a significant factor in climate change. To try however and make every disaster linked to CC or PO does IMO detract from serious debate.

As an example I actually believe that the financial crises that we are currently living through are linked to Peak Oil. Many do not and the above Question (IMO) strengthens their argument that the site is full of tin-foilers when spurious links are put forward.

I do accepts that changes in weight/mass distribution may make an effect at the margins, but do not with my current limited knowledge believe it 'caused' the disaster.

The potential effects of AGW scare the hell out of me, but the problem is IMO too big for me to do much about beyond my response to the more immediate (IMO) of PO which fortuitously complement (and go beyond) what would be my response to AGW.

No.

Brilliant argument. You convinced me!!

DB, I found the article that I was referring to:

Melting ice masses change the pressures on the underlying earth, which can lead to earthquakes and tsunamis, but that’s just the beginning. Rising seas also change the balance of mass across earth’s surface, putting new strain on old earthquake faults,

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-11 ... looks-like

[dorlomin]

Did global warming cause the Japan Earthquake/Tsunami?

Iain Stewart plus a bit of Beeb budget do the explaining.

[AdTheNad]

but do not with my current limited knowledge believe it 'caused' the disaster.

Did it cause it? No not a chance.

Did it have an effect on the timing, strength or duration? Undoubtedly.

How much of an effect did it have, being somewhere between next to nothing and substatial? Who knows.

[Asterisk]

Thanks for the backup Keith!

Rocky hates me because I have gone off on him more than once for his use of nonsensical arguments with regards to global warming and to quote Roosevelt, "I welcome his hatred", LOL

Quinny, I also wouldn't go so far as to say melting ice "caused" the earthquake. In fact, this post was probably poorly worded...should have been "could melting ice at the poles be contributing to an increase in seizmic activity?". Course that sounds so damn boring that I doubt anyone would have clicked it!

Ad, I think you summed it up perfectly.

[pedalling_faster]

The cause of earthquakes in Japan is extremely well researched and well understood, and has been since the mid-sixties. It has absolutely nothing to do with "global warming", ice melting, the moon's influence, the color of chickens gizzards or how much hair horses have grown this winter.

you forgot to mention rotting entrails.


i don't know how many other experienced (hands-on) engineers do this, but i have a list of the "top 10" engineers in Silicon Valley that i have worked with, and a shorter list of engineers that are even more skilled, that i was not fortunate enough to work with.

these are they guys that i revere, the guys that i learned the most from, by watching them work, by learning how they did what they did.

one of the central rules taught to me by one of the guys near the top of the list, a physicist in Silicon Valley who was called on by NASA to analyze the Challenger disaster (which he did, which was fixed), was the importance of knowing what you know - and knowing what you don't know.

one of the other things that was taught to me (by example) by a physicist at the very top of the list was, the importance of hands-on experience and of trusting your gut.


one of the other things that was taught to my by my own experience was the widespread practice in the medical industry of falsifying clinical trial results, and in the defense industry of using numerical analysis, not to solve problems, but to pretend to solve problems, while racking up multi-million dollar consulting fees (which you guys pay for.)

in other words, the gut instinct of a trained engineer trumps boatloads of analysis performed by people who are just following their boss' instructions.

admittedly, some of the guidelines learned from those 10 or 15 engineers are contradictory. some do a few simple calculations and then build a prototype, some do several rounds of analysis in support of their client's prototype.


long story short, anybody that says that the extra mass of seawater now sitting on the Pacific Plate will NOT affect seismic activity doesn't know what they're talking about. no matter how many supercomputers they have at their disposal.


in other words, we don't know.

human beings don't like not knowing. they would rather believe in a comfortable group-think delusion, than a messier more chaotic truth.


what we do know, is that the moon is pulling a lot harder on the Pacific and North American tectonic plates (because of the extreme perigee that occurs on March 19th), and on the comparable tectonic plate that Japan sits on.


simple physics would predict extreme tides because of the extreme perigee - which are being reported. simple physics would also predict increased geologic activity - which obviously is also being reported. looks like simple physics knows something.

so - Earth geology is tracking simple physics. and - it could be a coincidence ... theoretically. it will take a while to sort it all out.


meanwhile, on the Economic Front -

the cost from the Kobe quake in 1995 was $100 billion. the cost from this quake (if they can contain the 5 or 6 nuclear reactors) is going to be north of $500 billion. the economic effects from this one quake alone is enough to push the world economy over the edge (Japan was one of the primary purchasers of US debt - and Pimco just announced within the last week that they will stop buying US debt.)

in other words, even if we have no more major seismic activity in developed countries in the next month ... a world economy that was already stretched to the breaking point (US February deficit of $225 Billion ?) just took a massive uppercut to the chin.

personally, i wouldn't bet that Mother Nature is going to go back to sleep. therefore, i prepare for Doom. faced with chaos, not knowing exactly what to do, i trust my gut instincts.


the worst that can happen if i prepare and Mother Nature stays quiet is - i'll have an extra 150 cans of Great Value Carrots, Corn, and Potatoes laying around.

[dohboi]

Nicely put.

I think it was a piece written by the botanist and (in my opinion) philosopher, Wes Jackson (or it could have been his buddy, writer and sage Wendel Berry), that talked about our need to acknowledge our ignorance.

An ancient Eastern metaphor for going through life is walking across a rapidly running, turbulent, muddy stream--you have to be hyper vigilant at every step, since the water is constantly pushing to knock you off your feet. But mostly you have to be constantly aware that you cannot see clearly where your feet are going to land and how deep stream will be at the next step. Walking boldly and cavalierly forward without cautiously testing the water first will likely get you washed down the creak.

But instead we have been walking very boldly--in our use of ff, in our expansion of nuclear power even into seismically active areas, in our creation of franken-organisms...and the whole works are in the early stages of being washed down the stream, taking most of complex life on earth with us.

Knowing that there are things that you don't know m

[dorlomin]

The impact of 100 years of sea level on one hypothetical meter of ocean.

Given a 10km ocean crust. 3.3g/cm^3
Or 3.3 * 10^6g per m^3
So at 1.0 *10^5 meters for crust that is
3.3*10^11 grams per square meter of ocean floor.

Now on top of that square meter you are adding 20cm of water on top of that over the past 100 years.
Water is 1g/cm^3
The volume should be about 2.0 *10^5cm^3
2*10^5grams

So additional mass per square meter is [2*10^5/3.3*10^11]*100
0.606 *10^-6 *100
6.06*10^-5 of a percent of the total mass added.
Or 0.0000606% additional mass.

Figures are illustrative. Feel free to point to any mistakes.


Figures are missing current sea mass of exising sea wich may measure several thousand meters.


You lot want to make a meal of of that, go for it. Its your credibility not mine.

[scas]

dorlomin - the atmosphere is only 0.3 percent CO2. Amazing how such a small change in a trace gas can have such immense impact.Can you provide commentary as to why the Royal Society believes seismic activity is already being affected?

And what of uneven sea level rise due to glacial gravity?

We all know it is impossible to determine whether an individual quake was in any way affected by climate change, and no one is attributing this one to it, but for anyone to say physical changes in a system have no effect on the whole is just silly.

[dohboi]

There is an interesting interchange on this general subject over at RC (starting at post # 43):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/03/under-and-over-the-ice/#more-7087

[dorlomin]

dorlomin - the atmosphere is only 0.3 percent CO2. Amazing how such a small change in a trace gas can have such immense impact.

99.9% of the dry atmosphere has no absorbtion spectra in infrared wavelength. You suggesting rock has a different type of mass to water?

Science by analogy not analysis.

Can you provide commentary as to why the Royal Society believes seismic activity is already being affected?

Where do they say that it has.