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
My Junior High school level child came home Monday and told me his teacher told the class that the earth has tilted by 10 degrees due to the Japan quake.
I asked him if he meant 10 inches, he told me it was not inches but degrees.
I hope it was the social studues teacher not his advanced science teacher.
It’s worse than I thought!
Belvedere,
Interesting link. You have to admit that your first comment sounded like a combination of astrology and the 2012 scare.
But 0.2 AU is far enough away. This time.
Nobody said there was a connection except the lynch mob that came out after all the people who showed that isostatic adjustment can cause an increase in seismic activity. It wasn’t the climate change crowd that said that, it was those trying to vilify them that are claiming they said “Global Warming caused the earthquakes in Japan!”. But, they said nothing of the sort. It’s not a valid argument to start with, which is why nobody ever made it.
I sent a note to the author of this article (Mr. William Marsden) suggesting that perhaps he should verify the story before printing it. Sent him some links to the U.S. Geological Survey web site to aid him in his quest for answers…got this note back (27 minutes):
———-(quote from email)———–
verified and confirmed.
always amazed at how emotional you deniers get over climate change
stories. must be tough on the old blood pressure.
———-(end quote)——-
So I did a minor bit of homework for him, went to the sites FAQ and found this tidbit on earthquake frequency vs perception which I send back to Mr. Marsden…
———-(quote from U.S. Geological Survey site)————–
FAQs – Earthquake Myths
« Previous FAQ | All FAQ’s | Next FAQ »
Q: Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has earthquake activity been increasing? Does this mean a big one is going to hit? OR We haven’t had any earthquakes in a long time; does this mean that the pressure is building up?
A: Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years.
There are several reasons for the perception that the number of earthquakes, in general, and particularly destructive earthquakes is increasing.
———–(end quote)—————(lots more, good reading!)
I haven’t heard back from him after this: 2+ hours and counting.
Reality bites!
Smokey,
I am aware of that, and i am sorry for that.
It was a primary reaction to the topic i saw here on WUWT.
I just hope it is not a cover up for the devestation we might face when this comet is actually the binary star of our sun, wich is a brown dwarf and tracked by Nasa and many others.
Funny though that when u ask Nasa about this comet and the link to Nibiru, they are not shy in using the words conspiracy and theorists. That’s a way to debunk everything into false just by calling it that way..
Dr. Svalgaard
You obviously did not read my post, just fire off your ‘respected opinion’.
I did not say it has. Lot of research is required before we can have an indicative idea, one way or the other, even if turns out that probability is anything more than random.
Dismissing it out of hand only hours after the event, it is typical of self opinionated so called scientists (as your anonymous expert most likely happen to be, and some other ‘know it all’ so called experts I can think off).
Two or three NASA scientists quoted here
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01705/EGU06-J-01705.pdf
are not fools or armchair alarmists.
Earthquakes make homeless or kill countless thousands of people particularly in the third world countries, just think of Haiti, Pakistan, Turkey just to mention few. Evidence may or may not be there, but it is worth taking a look in another way, not done before. So any line of research, especially if it is done without public funds involved, however minute contribution it may eventually make (if it does) in saving even one child from getting maimed or killed, it is worth perusing.
That is why I find all these pronouncements about ‘certainty’ that there is no link, that nothing should be researched any further, so reprehensible and deplorable.
It is so called ‘certainty’ of your climate fraternity from the Stanford and elsewhere, that has brought not only climate science into disrepute, but is undermining confidence in the science generaly.
Smokey says:
March 16, 2011 at 3:26 pm
But 0.2 AU is far enough away. This time.
Not if the mass of the comet is 2.5 Jupiter’s. But the masses of comets are not that great, so not to worry. Perhaps Vuk should make this his next great innovative research project for the benefit of all mankind.
@ur momisugly Belvedere:
A Russian astronomer comments about comet Elanin from SpaceObs.org:
“At now we can’t tall accurate size of comet nucleus. By my estimate about 3-4 km in diameter, perhaps less…
But comet nucleus surrounding by extensive gaseous coma in many times larger than nucleus.”
Doesn’t sound like a brown dwarf to me, just a small comet, definitely not 2.5x the mass of Jupiter. Where are you getting your information? Surely you are not just trying to scare are you?
vukcevic says:
March 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm
That is why I find all these pronouncements about ‘certainty’ that there is no link, that nothing should be researched any further, so reprehensible and deplorable.
People have been looking at this for decades and no solid evidence has been found. In order to do research you must first learn something about the subject and be familiar with what has been done in the field already. The geomagnetic activity you referred to was nothing special and not particular strong. It was the expected result of the passage of co-rotating interaction regions in front of solar magnetic sectors. There are many hundreds of such passages [most of which are eminently predictable weeks or even months in advance] in every solar cycle. They show a strong 27-day recurrence. A list of such passages can be found here http://www.leif.org/research/sblist.txt . Earthquakes do not show 27-day or 11-yr cycles. This is well-trodden ground.
Two or three NASA scientists quoted here
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01705/EGU06-J-01705.pdf
are not fools.
Reading their abstract does not inspire much confidence in them. Using phrases like ‘amazing correlations’ is a give-away. You have actually not even read the paper as only the abstract is available. A paper by one of the authors http://www.isfep.com/website%2014_013-G.Duma.pdf gives more information, but is equally weak. The incessant references to ‘NASA scientists’ try to appeal to authority that isn’t there. This is not NASA research, any more than Hathaway’s personal prediction of solar cycles is.
but is undermining confidence in the science generally
Self-aggrandizing pseudo-science seems to be doing just fine.
I’m voting for Mayan end of days in 2012, makes as much sense as AGW, and it’s movie was better.
Leif Svalgaard wrote, “Not to speak about the even more tenuous claims that the increase in solar activity causes mega-earthquakes.”
The relationship between solar wind speed & global seismicity (Centennial Earthquake Catalog) is nonrandom.
vukcevic says:
March 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm
that nothing should be researched any further
It is always a good idea from time to time to re-assess old results. The problem is that you have not done that. Find a catalog of a lot of quakes and of magnetic storms or sector boundaries [e.g. my list] and do a proper analysis [e.g. a superposed epoch] to convince yourself there is nothing there.
Paul Vaughan says:
March 16, 2011 at 7:52 pm
The relationship between solar wind speed & global seismicity (Centennial Earthquake Catalog) is nonrandom.
What relationship?
The AccuWeather Climate Blog also has an article about the Montreal Gazette piece relating climate change and earthquakes.
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/47084/link-between-severe-earthquake-1.asp
Following is from the ESA in 2003 about volcanic activity. Maybe it applies to earthquakes too:
Possible correlation between solar and volcanic activity in a long-term scale
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2003ESASP.535..393S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
ABSTRACT
Volcanic activity on the Earth is described by special
annual indices available since 1500. These indices have
been compared with annual sunspot numbers. Volcanic
activity displays no 11 -yr periodicity. Using 2 1-yr
running averages a striking similarity between these
two time series is clearly seen. Volcanic activity is
generally lower in periods of prolonged maxima of
solar activity and higher in periods of prolonged solar
minima. There is also a similarity between the spectra
of these two series in the long-period range. Main
peaks are located in the same periods in both series
(200-215 yr. 100-105 yr, 80-90 yr). The influence of
volcanic activity on the climate is indubitable. Annual
means of surface air temperature display similar long-term
periodicity as the volcanic activity.
This wriggle matching correlation talk used to be the province of women. Now men see all kinds of connections between this, that, and the other thing. We women figured out a long time ago that things that just happened to be nonrandom meant absolutely nothing. So catch up.
“It is conceivable that there would be some increase in earthquake activity during periods of rapid changes on the Earth’s crust.”
How rapid are we talking about?
“Ed Zuiderwijk says:
March 16, 2011 at 1:42 am
As far as I know there have been no large changes in its thickness over the last half century. Reported changes are of order 1-10 meters on an ice depth of 1-3 km, hence at most at the 1% level, probably much less.”
Am I interpreting this correctly to mean a maximum of 10 m in 50 years? If so, that means a maximum of 20 cm per year. Isn’t a larger amount than this both added to and removed from most mountain ranges every six months with the changing of the seasons? If so, then to blame melting glaciers for earthquakes seems rather inappropriate.
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=325&c=5
Yeah, but Corbyn is just as nutso, right?
Leif Svalgaard says:
….
If you red my posts or the web page http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm (just updated) you would realise you comments are irrelevant
Just get one simple point (I have repeated number of times): If conditions for an earthquake are ‘ripe’, i.e. geological fault has ‘gone critical’ then a solar storm could be a trigger (not the cause) for it, and bring it forward for few hours or days. I am plotting number of parameters, not just intensity, current indication from the graph is that intensity although critical, on its own is not the closest correlation. No tables or data from the past have all information required.
No expertise in tectonics of the solar physics is essential to record and plot 3-4 values of data, readily available. Time will tell if data I am recording is of any relevance or not.
p.s.
Ms Gray
My sincere apologies for misspelling your name.
Japan earthquake:
2011/03/11 05:46:24
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0001xgp.php
Geomagnetic Ap index for 2011/03/11 day’s max 94, not exceptionally high, but the highest for at least year or two. http://www.solen.info/solar/indices.html
Virtually everyone in the United States and Canada who died from cancer ate carrots at some time in their lives.
Using the extensive data analysis and brilliant logic displayed in that article, it must follow that carrots cause cancer.
If you’re gonna go down the ‘man-made’ road you might as well start blaimng HAARP – at least there’s actual evidence to back gthat up – including the Tokyo Uni readouts of the HAARp frequency changes over the last 2 weeks.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 15, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Not to speak about the even more tenuous claims that the increase in solar activity causes mega-earthquakes.
Actually it’s teh opposite. The Solar minimums cause the earthquakes. Published on March 10th – new peer review paper linking the two – unknown mechanism though
vukcevic says:
March 16, 2011 at 4:42 am
Absolutely agree. If geomagnetic storms play any part, and that is by no way certain, at least they are predictable anything up to 48 hours in advance. Not much of a help if location of a fault gone ‘critical’ is not known, but every additional information is a step forward, and that is what science should be about.
I shall update info as often as possible and eventually it will become clearer one way or the other, or not at all.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm
~
Vuks..noticed the magnetometer chain used for your study is Tromso. Why wouldn’t you use Asian or Japanese magnetometers? More specific to the region of your study?
Hmm..solar activity..under certain conditions.. a trigger for earthquakes..hmm. Were we above or below the solar ecliptic that day .. oh so many conditions..
Has Leif done the flat tire thing yet? Well time to pick up on this thread where I left off..
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm
..There is no known, credible evidence of solar activity triggering earthquakes. Moreover, in the historical record, there are thousands of examples of geomagnetic storms without earthquakes, and similar numbers of earthquakes without geomagnetic storms. The two phenomena are not linked.”..
~
Leif, if ..solar activity is ongoing ah perpetual and Earth’s tectonics are ongoing, how can we seperate..where an influence might begin and end? Why might we see a correlation in volcanic activity and not tectonic?
You don’t have to answer that just thinking out loud..