At first, when I got an email message pointing out this topic of global warming driving more earthquake energy, I thought it was satire. Then I saw it was on CBS News, so I knew it couldn’t be satire, but something else altogether. I’ll leave deciding what that is up to you the reader.
Today’s Quakes Deadlier Than In Past
Study: Seismic Activity 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago Because Of Global Warming
June 18th full story is here
New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.
Excerpt:
“The most serious environmental danger we face on Earth may not be climate change, but rapidly and systematically increasing seismic, tectonic and volcanic activity,” said Dr. Chalko.
“Increase in the annual energy of earthquakes is the strongest symptom yet of planetary overheating. “
In related news:
Energy release from earthquakes may be up since 1990, but it is still below levels early in the 1900s; see the graph from this page:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/quake1.html
Source data: USGS
Click for a larger image
Estimated total annual earthquake energy release (magnitude 8 earthquake = 1 = 1,000 magnitude 6 earthquakes) in red; 7-year average in grey.
Click for a larger image
Annual earthquake death rate per million population in red; smoothed rates in grey (specifically, linear smoothing with 7-year Hann window). Note logarithmic scale.
UPDATE: I resisted my primal urges of expression on this subject, figuring others with such skills would take care of that for me. Strangely, I now find myself in my first ever agreement with BigCityLib, on this issue.
UPDATE2: Junkscience.com reports that Hansen’s modeling may be the impetus for this idea:
We’ve probably had enough fun at Chalko’s expense but should point out his ‘research’ is based on totally flawed model output from none other than Hansen himself. Remember the infamous “smoking gun” release? In Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications Hansen, et al, state: “Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.” This is the source of Chalko’s “NASA measurements from space confirm that Earth as a whole absorbs at least 0.85 Megawatt per square kilometer more energy from the Sun than it is able to radiate back to space. This ‘thermal imbalance’ means that heat generated in the planetary interior cannot escape and that the planetary interior must overheat. Increase in seismic, tectonic and volcanic activities is an unavoidable consequence of the observed thermal imbalance of the planet” Unfortunately for Tom, they aren’t “NASA measurements from space” but Hansen’s crappy model output and it’s quite wrong.
When the “Energy Imbalance” paper was written the model output was a fair wiggle-fit with Willis (2004) and Levitus (2004). Like all happy accidents, however, this good thing came to an end, too. We’ll let Professor Roger Pielke, Sr., do the honors:
The Correction To The Lyman Et Al 2006 Paper Is Available – The correction to the Lyman et al paper “Recent cooling of the upper ocean” is available. It is “Correction to ‘Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’” by Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson. While this correction eliminates the cooling that they reported in the 2006 paper, the warming of the 1990s and very early 2000s has not continued. This absence of global ocean warming (which is consistent with the absence of a significant global average sea surface temperature anomaly trend for the last few years) is a challenge to the modelers and to the conclusions of the IPCC with respect to the ability to skillfully predict global warming. Indeed, it appears that with respect to the challenge on Climate Science of A Litmus Test For Global Warming – A Much Overdue Requirement, the models have failed so far. (Climate Science)
UPDATE UPDATE!
AS OF 11:20AM PST 6/19/08 CBS NEWS HAS PULLED THE STORY! The link no longer works!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/tech/main4191556.shtml
Here is proof however of it’s existence, a small screen cap. Did anyone make any larger ones?
MORE: Associated Press (AP) has also pulled the story:
Pray tell, what is the hypothesis of AGW and what specific points do you think falsify it?
Pray tell, why do you ask? Since you seem to be an AGW proponent, you must know what AGW is, and should be able to prove it. Prove away.
I respectfully beg to differ with Dan Evans (above) on the importance of Dr. Chalko and this story.
The real story here is that CBS ran it at all. And that is important.
If they ran a story like this, what other stories have they told us that are wrong but not as obvious? If you ask someone about their beliefs and why they believe it, for the most part their opinions are formed by organizations like CBS. For example, ask people to name the person that made “regime change” in Iraq (i.e. getting rid of Saddam) a cardinal point of US foreign policy.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Can’t be any sillier than this … “Global Warming May Lead To Increase In Kidney Stones Disease” …
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515072740.htm
So what do we think a warming earth would do the crust? I like Steve Sadlov’s comment that a warmer earth would make the crust more plastic = less quakes. If the atmosphere warmed by 1 degree, could we assume the earth would eventually warm by 1 degree?
Also the warmth would work its way from the surface down. So if the surface warms by 1 degree, but at 10km down only warms by 0.5 degree, this would mean surface rocks would expand more than rocks at 10km down. Could this increase stress at all? Or would the increase be so little that you couldn’t possibly measure it?
My instinct says its ridiculous that there would be a measurable effect on earthquakes, but until someone can show reasonable argument, I would keep a slightly open mind. To me the test is: do other smart people pick up on this and say ‘heh there might be something to this’. And if so I would look at the arguments in more detail.
Of course as pointed out on climate audit, there was a lot more earthquake activity early in the 20th century when the earth was even cooler. Unless our measurement is so poor that earth was actually warmest in the early 20th century.
MSNBC still running with this never critically examined joke of a press release as of 7:40PM EDT.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/25222766/
I just happened to see CBS on the evening news while working out and they had a lead off story about the current flooding. It was titled “Global Warming at last?”. *sigh*
Jon,
I know, I know!!! *raises hand*
It was Bill Clinton.
Do I get a prize
Well, I did see a study a few weeks back that seemed to indicate that global warming could affect Tectonic activity. The only sticking point was that temps would have to rise to current +100C and remain there for a few thousand years for the effect to take place.
Aliens! http://thiaoouba.com/faq.htm
Auras: http://thiaoouba.com/seeau.htm
Astral Travel? http://thiaoouba.com/astr.htm
And those are just the A’s!
Where’s Mad Magazine when you really need it?
Droughts will get drier, storms will get stormier and floods will get deeper
Chris, the same story appeared today on my EMBARQ home page. There’s something wrong with the wording in the sentence above, though. I think it should say, “floods will get floodier”.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:49:45) :
“I have uploaded a zip file containing a GIF screenshot + HTML to http://home.online.no/~arnholm/watts/cbsnews.zip ”
Thanks.
I tried saving the MSNBC story, but got a .html file that opens 8 or 9 windows in Firefox and not the real story. It is in the .html, but I didn’t investigate deeply.
Weird, but anything with MS and Firefox is weird.
Another amusing story, thank you Google News
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080619190236.aspx says:
Scientists don’t even know how many volcanoes there are under the ocean:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12218-thousand-of-new-volcanoes-revealed-beneath-the-waves.html
And,
counters:
“Pray tell, what is the hypothesis of AGW and what specific points do you think falsify it?”
The hypothesis, as I understand it, is that “carbon” [by which they mean carbon dioxide] emitted by human activities will cause runaway global warming.
This doesn’t bode well for those flogging AGW:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/gorebot/CRU_AND_MSU_vs_CO2.jpg
There are dozens more of these moronic global warming – disaster link studies and news stories.
We should try to get them pulled (or alternatively promote them until the general public fully sees through this exagerated global warming threat.)
AGW is the equivalent of the lead that was present in ancient Romes water pipes. I guess the AGW Koolaid must contain lead. The journalists are obviously the first affected but large parts of the population are also symptomatic.
Gee, this is getting really biblical. How many plagues so far? Let’s see: earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, drought, storms. When do we get locusts, boils and frogs?
“He’s barking mad, although his vibration analysis stuff looks quite good.”
From my experience with vibration analysis, it looks like, well, crap.
But, I’m not on the same level (astral or otherwise) as he.
I suppose that next someone will “prove” that “global warming” caused the breakup of Pangea.
Wait, it did!
Bill marsh,
You bet you get a prize!!
If you make it to the Austin, TX area, I would happily buy you a Shiners Bock!
I enjoy the company of informed people.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
THis is an interesting fact, and indeed a wake up call. And I thought global warming is our only serious problem.
Still in Google’s cache:
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:rkAygt79WGYJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/tech/main4191556.shtml+cbs+quakes+deadlier&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
I think the most dangerous thing on Earth…. Is Climate scientists.
…. I’m so embarrassed…. This nut comes from Australia. We used to have really good scientists here…. Before they got pinched by the yanks and we got left with these freaks of nature.
…. Shoulda gone Spartan on ’em…. Left ’em on a cold hilltop at birth…. It’s never to late I ‘spose….?
Smokey:
I’ve stated this in a previous thread. That 10 year period is a ridiculous baseline comparison because of the 1998 anomalous highs which are directly correlated and explained by an extremely strong El Nino. Besides, you’re arguing on a false premise; a single, straight trend line means absolutely nothing when we’re talking about a noisy, complicated system such as temperature of the climate. At the very least, you need an error interval to reflect the extremely high variance intrinsic to the signal. At a tiny bit more, you should be extrapolating from a period which doesn’t begin with the warmest average temperature of the past century.
Your premise is also flawed because no one is predicting “runaway global warming.” Try again… you’re pretty close. What is the hypothesis central to AGW Theory?
Bruce Cobb, I’m not going to waste my time enumerating the evidence supporting AGW theory because I know that you’re not going to be persuaded; you’re either politically or emotionally invested in denying its premise. However, if you put up attempts to falsify the theory, then the rest of us can debunk them. Logically speaking, if the evidence supports the theory, counter-evidence can’t be produced, and a competing theory can’t be introduced, then the theory is sound.
It’s my understanding that both natural and man-made caves far enough removed from outside air are unchanging in their temperature, even during ~40 degree seasonal changes on the surface. If this is so, “global warming” of a few degrees is going to have zero effect on the crust.
I’m not going to waste my time enumerating the evidence supporting AGW theory…
Yeah, counters, we know. No time. Heard it before. Typical. Try again. BTW, it isn’t even a theory. Never made it beyond the hypothesis stage. But, you knew that, right?
Extrapolating from a period which begins with some of the coldest temperatures of the past century is ok though, right?
The Earth is quite dangerous,
the Universe too.
For many dangers
there’s nothing to do
(if there’s no God,
we’re simply screwed).
But with CO2,
it’s simple indeed;
no burning of carbon
and please do not breathe.