Click image for the story. h/t to WUWT reader “Eric”.
I’m always amazed at the lack of historical perspective some people have related to natural disasters. It’s doubly amazing when reporters who work in newspapers, who have huge archive resources at their disposal, don’t even bother to look. Here’s some excerpts from the story:
“There is certainly some literature that talks about the increased occurrence of volcanic eruptions and the removing of load from the crust by deglaciation,” said Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta. “It changes the stress load in the crust and maybe it opens up routes for lava to come to the surface.
“It is conceivable that there would be some increase in earthquake activity during periods of rapid changes on the Earth’s crust.”
Other scientists, however, believe that tectonic movements similar to the one that caused the Japanese quake are too deep in the Earth to be affected by the pressure releases caused by glacier melt.
…
Some experts claim that jump can be explained by the increased number of seismograph stations — more than 8,000 now, up from 350 in 1931 — allowing scientists to pinpoint earthquakes that would otherwise have been missed.
But this does not explain the recent increase in major earthquakes, which are defined as above 6 on the Richter magnitude scale. Japan’s earthquake was a 9.
Scientists have been tracking these powerful quakes for well over a century and it’s unlikely that they have missed any during at least the last 60 years.
According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey there were 1,085 major earthquakes in the 1980s. This increased in the 1990s by about 50 per cent to 1,492 and to 1,611 from 2000 to 2009. Last year, and up to and including the Japanese quake, there were 247 major earthquakes.
There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan. In the 1980s, there were four mega-quakes, six in the 1990s and 13 in the last decade. So far this decade we have had two. This increase, however, could be temporary.
======================================================
A couple of faults in the argument, from the NYT, 1879:
As many as 200,000 people died in the 1855 quake.
And again in 1896:
and also….1923
h/t to Steve Goddard, who has been doing a lot of historical research here: http://news.google.com/newspapers
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Carla says:
March 18, 2011 at 7:07 am
“No effect, not even a tiny one.”
We can’t say that Leif. Solar effect is part of the “WHOLE” ongoing process.
Regardless, the observations simply show that there is no effect. Perhaps you do not understand what is plotted, or you haven’t thought about it. So, let me explain: It is claimed that solar effects somehow trigger an earthquake ‘before its time’. This means that there should be more earthquakes just after a solar storm. Examining ALL such storms over the last 100 years shows that there is no such increase in the number of earthquakes on the day of the storm [or on any other day for that matter]. As simple as that: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png which shows the number of earthquakes on the day of the storm at 0, one day after the storm at 1, etc.
The blue and the red points are from two different Earthquake Catalogs [the red going to slightly lower energy 5.5 Richter than the blue 6, hence the higher number].
Perhaps a tincy-wincy effect as shown here:
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2246/earthquakeelectric14013.jpg
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 10:36 am
Perhaps a tincy-wincy effect as shown here:
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2246/earthquakeelectric14013.jpg
Coincidental wiggle-matching.
If solar effects somehow trigger an earthquake ‘before its time’. It would mean that there should be more earthquakes just after a solar storm. Examining ALL such storms over the last 100 years shows that there is no such increase in the number of earthquakes on the day of the storm [or on any other day for that matter].
So direct observations show no effect whatsoever.
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 10:36 am
Perhaps a tincy-wincy effect as shown here:
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2246/earthquakeelectric14013.jpg
The magnetic intensity [even apart from the sign] plotted does not match the actual intensity observed: http://www.leif.org/research/Horz-Int-Tokyo.png
Another example of uncritical confirmation bias. Know the subject before commenting.
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2246/earthquakeelectric14013.jpg
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 18, 2011 at 10:50 am
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 10:36 am
Perhaps a tincy-wincy effect as shown here:
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2246/earthquakeelectric14013.jpg
Coincidental wiggle-matching.
If solar effects somehow trigger an earthquake ‘before its time’. It would mean that there should be more earthquakes just after a solar storm. Examining ALL such storms over the last 100 years shows that there is no such increase in the number of earthquakes on the day of the storm [or on any other day for that matter].
So direct observations show no effect whatsoever.
~
Slow down..time out..wait just a minute.
ahh Vuks are we talking about an INCREASE in seismic activity due to solar activity? Or are we talking that certain solar magnetic field coupling events, that induce currents, that might travel down a field line out of its auroral location, to a lower latitude, there by triggering an already waiting to happen Earth quake? Or a solar shock induced triggering of an already slippery plate?
Dr. S. you were kinda confusing me with all the talk about no real increases of EQ activity due to solar events.
So much stuff going on with the tectonic plates, with all that corylosis, extensional, compression, convergence zone, GIA, atmospheric waves, tides, shocks, currents, magnetic fields etc……
Hmm whats this folder window, Helium Focusing Cone? Piece of the catapult..
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 18, 2011 at 10:50 am
Dr. S. you were kinda confusing me with all the talk about no real increases of EQ activity due to solar events.
It is really quite simple. If a solar storm were to trigger an earthquake then on the day of the storm [or at most a very few days thereafter] that earthquake would happen, rather than later on. This means that on the day of the storm here would be one [or more] more earthquake than if the storm had not happened. So by simply counting how many earthquakes happened on ‘storm days’, we would predict a spike in the count compared to any other day. No such spike is observed, hence the storm did not trigger any earthquakes.
Carla
I think it was perfectly clear what I was doing the test for, not making a claim, but suggesting a possibility. But if Dr. S. wants to interpret it his way then let him try this test: plot number of earthquakes M5 and above against the intensity and number of magnetic storms from 01/01/ 2010- 18/03/2011. Hardly can claim cherry picking since period called ‘now’ is not recognised by science as such, ‘now’ may be unusual, but ‘now’ is not cherry picking!
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I think it was perfectly clear what I was doing the test for, not making a claim, but suggesting a possibility.
The data has shown again and again that the possibility does not pan out. The plot you suggest is not well-defined. For any time period the number of earthquakes and the intensity and number of storms are just three numbers. A plot using ALL storms as I made shows the lack of any relation.
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I think it was perfectly clear what I was doing the test for, not making a claim, but suggesting a possibility.
There are 1500 earthquakes per year of magnitude 5 or greater, so there will be many hits on every day, making it a meaningless exercise, as you can always find an earthquake after any storm. The proper analysis [using as much data as possible – 100 years] is to see if there are more earthquakes on or just after a geomagnetic storm. If you do the analysis, you find that there are not.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 18, 2011 at 6:21 pm
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I think it was perfectly clear what I was doing the test for, not making a claim, but suggesting a possibility.
There are 1500 earthquakes per year of magnitude 5 or greater, so there will be many hits on every day, making it a meaningless exercise, as you can always find an earthquake after any storm..
~
That is an interesting stat.
I’m not so into stats as, location of the storms impact (Asia, Canada, etc) on existing surface fields and currents wrt the already ongoing tectonic process it is coupled. Not every storm impacts exactly the same.
They spun Voyager 1 around looking for the solar wind out there in the turbulent heliosheath.
Voyager Seeks the Answer Blowin’ in the Wind 03.08.11
..The two Voyager spacecraft are traveling through a turbulent area known as the heliosheath. The heliosheath is the outer shell of a bubble around our solar system created by the solar wind, a stream of ions blowing radially outward from the sun at a million miles per hour. The wind must turn as it approaches the outer edge of the bubble where it makes contact with the interstellar wind, which originates in the region between stars and blows by our solar bubble.
In June 2010, when Voyager 1 was about 17 billion kilometers (about 11 billion miles) away from the sun, data from the Low Energy Charged Particle instrument began to show that the net outward flow of the solar wind was zero. That zero reading has continued since. The Voyager science team doesn’t think the wind has disappeared in that area. It has likely just turned a corner. But does it go up, down or to the side?
“Because the direction of the solar wind has changed and its radial speed has dropped to zero, we have to change the orientation of Voyager 1 so the Low Energy Charged Particle instrument can act like a kind of weather vane to see which way the wind is now blowing,” said Edward Stone, Voyager project scientist, based at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. “Knowing the strength and direction of the wind is critical to understanding the shape of our solar bubble and estimating how much farther it is to the edge of interstellar space.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager20110308.html
Carla says:
March 19, 2011 at 6:00 am
I’m not so into stats as, location of the storms impact (Asia, Canada, etc) on existing surface fields and currents wrt the already ongoing tectonic process it is coupled. Not every storm impacts exactly the same.
You have not understood the analysis. Even if only SOME storms have impact, the number of EQs on those storm days would be higher and there would still be a spike on day 0, albeit a bit smaller. If even fewer storms have impact, the spike would be smaller still. As there is no spike, it means that no storms have any impact.
They spun Voyager 1 around looking for the solar wind out there in the turbulent heliosheath.
Is OT and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Dr.S.
Your results don’t show anything, hence irrelevant.
My results (regular daily updates) are here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm
Come back in a month or so.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2011 at 7:57 am
Carla says:
March 19, 2011 at 6:00 am
I’m not so into stats as, location of the storms impact (Asia, Canada, etc) on existing surface fields and currents wrt the already ongoing tectonic process it is coupled. Not every storm impacts exactly the same.
You have not understood the analysis. Even if only SOME storms have impact, the number of EQs on those storm days would be higher and there would still be a spike on day 0, albeit a bit smaller. If even fewer storms have impact, the spike would be smaller still. As there is no spike, it means that no storms have any impact.
~
“”You have not understood the analysis.””
Yes I have, (both) thank you.
But.. not what I am looking at.
Leif, if I am only looking for spikes, then I wont be able to see the continuum ‘part’ of the ongoing processes. If this is just a part of an ongoing process, coupling IMF, MF, SF, there wont be spikes on any given days, storms or no. Doesn’t mean the triggering does not occur due to shocks and ground currents that were solar induced.
And I hear tell that the more ice on the planet the fewer ground current and lower over all surface field.
vukcevic says:
March 19, 2011 at 9:47 am
Your results don’t show anything, hence irrelevant.
Because there is nothing there. No effect.
Carla says:
March 19, 2011 at 10:03 am
If this is just a part of an ongoing process, coupling IMF, MF, SF, there wont be spikes on any given days, storms or no.
What it means is that you cannot use solar storms as a predictor for the EQ. Which is the whole point.
Doesn’t mean the triggering does not occur due to shocks and ground currents that were solar induced.
If triggering occurred there would be a spike. If a storm on day X triggers an EQ on day X [or any other day just after X] there would be a spike on that day(s).