Study suggests great earthquakes as cause of Arctic warming

MOSCOW INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY

Research News

IMAGE
IMAGE: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS ARE AN ARCHIPELAGO COMPRISING DOZENS OF ISLANDS WITH 40 ACTIVE AND 17 DORMANT VOLCANOES view more CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK

A researcher from MIPT has proposed a new explanation for the Arctic’s rapid warming. In his recent paper in Geosciences, he suggests that the warming could have been triggered by a series of great earthquakes.

Global warming is one of the pressing issues faced by civilization. It is widely believed to be caused by human activity, which increases the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, this view does not explain why temperatures sometimes rise fairly abruptly.

In the Arctic, one of the factors driving climate warming is the release of methane from permafrost and metastable gas hydrates in the shelf zone. Since researchers began to monitor temperatures in the Arctic, the region has seen two periods of abrupt warming: first in the 1920s and ’30s, and then beginning in 1980 and continuing to this day.

Leopold Lobkovsky, who authored the study reported in this story, is a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the head of the MIPT Laboratory for Geophysical Research of the Arctic and Continental Margins of the World Ocean. In his paper, the scientist hypothesized that the unexplained abrupt temperature changes could have been triggered by geodynamic factors. Specifically, he pointed to a series of great earthquakes in the Aleutian Arc, which is the closest seismically active area to the Arctic.

To test his hypothesis, Lobkovsky had to answer three questions. First, did the dates of the great earthquakes coincide with temperature jumps? Second, what is the mechanism that enables the lithospheric disturbances to propagate over more than 2,000 kilometers from the Aleutian Islands to the Arctic shelf region? Third, how do these disturbances intensify methane emissions?

The answer to the first question came from historical data analysis. It turned out that the Aleutian Arc was indeed the site of two series of great earthquakes in the 20th century (more details below the text). Each of them preceded an abrupt rise in temperature by about 15 to 20 years.

It took a model of lithospheric excitation dynamics to answer the second question. The model used by the researcher describes the propagation of so-called tectonic waves and predicts that they should travel at about 100 kilometers per year. This agrees with the delay between each of the great earthquake series and the subsequent temperature hike, as it took the disturbances 15 to 20 years to get transmitted over 2,000 kilometers.

To answer the third question, the researcher proposed the following explanation: The deformation waves arriving in the shelf zone cause minor additional stresses in the lithosphere, which are sufficient to disrupt the internal structure of the metastable gas hydrates and permafrost storing captured methane. This releases methane into the water of the shelf and atmosphere, leading to climate warming in the region due to the greenhouse effect.

“There is a clear correlation between the great earthquakes in the Aleutian Arc and the phases of climate warming. A mechanism exists for physically transmitting the stresses in the lithosphere at the appropriate velocities. And these added stresses are capable of destroying metastable gas hydrates and permafrost, releasing methane. Each of the three components in this scheme is logical and lends itself to mathematical and physical explanation. Importantly, it explains a known fact — the abrupt rise in temperature anomalies in the Arctic — which remained unaccounted for by the previous models,” Lobkovsky commented.

According to the researcher, his model will benefit from discussion and will likely be improved, and there is much to be done in order to confirm or rule out the proposed mechanism.

###

The research reported in this story was carried out at MIPT with the support of the Russian Science Foundation, grant No. 20-17-00140.

Two great earthquake series. The first one started with a magnitude 8 earthquake in 1899 in the eastern part of the Aleutian Arc, followed by two more great earthquakes in the western part of the islands, with magnitudes of 8.3 and 8.4. The second series began with an 8.6 magnitude earthquake in 1957, followed by the 9.3 magnitude 1964 Alaskan earthquake. The following year, an 8.7 magnitude earthquake shook the western part of the arc. Each of these devastating seismic events had underground sources spanning hundreds of kilometers.

From EurekAlert!

4.1 8 votes
Article Rating
95 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel O'Bryan
December 25, 2020 6:22 pm

Call me skeptical.
The 50% residence time (half-life) of methane is quite low.
There was a great 1700 9.0+ Earthquake on the Juan de Fuca-Cascadia Fault. Then the LIA hit.

Alan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 25, 2020 8:07 pm

Yes, methane is short lived compaired to co2. The 1700 earthquake would be more like the middle or latter part of the LIA.

Last edited 2 months ago by Alan
Clyde Spencer
December 25, 2020 6:36 pm

Unfortunately, the Eureka Alert version of the story doesn’t show the temperature graph shown here: https://scitechdaily.com/great-earthquakes-may-be-the-cause-of-the-arctics-rapid-warming/

In my judgment, the first warming period should start about 1900, rather than 1919, and the second warming period should start about 1965, rather than 1970. Thus, the earthquake events come immediately before the beginning of the warming, with no delay.

Last edited 2 months ago by Clyde Spencer
PCman999
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 25, 2020 10:49 pm

The article states that the earthquakes cause a pressure wave that travels 100km a year, which reaches 2000km after 20yrs which squeezes out the methane that then automagically causes the warming, in spite of the methane floating away and being blown all over the place by high winds. What I want to know is where is the rest of the graph in the link you provided – they left out everything after 2010.

RoHa
December 25, 2020 6:44 pm

Doesn’t man-made CO2 cause earthquakes?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  RoHa
December 25, 2020 7:18 pm

There are people who believe it does.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 25, 2020 9:33 pm

Climate cargo cult associates everything in a changing climate with the CO2 molecule, but only human-produced CO2 molecules.
CO2 molecules are tricky that way. They know wince they came.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 25, 2020 10:37 pm

Bit like the magic COVID-19 virus that knows how to measure the difference between 1.5m and 2.0m distancing. And when pubs shut!

Rod Evans
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 26, 2020 12:11 am

It’s Covid 19s ability to remain stuck to the person wearing a clear visor standing off their face that most impresses me. Now you have to be a very smart virus to, firstly notice the clear screen ahead and second to know, that means you must not move sideways or downwards away from the face guarded person.
If only the humans possessed as much intellect as that clever virus eh?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 26, 2020 8:32 am

I call it the Vampire Virus. In countries where curfews are enacted at night, these curfews are apparently based on the politicians “following the science”. So according to these superstition beliefs “based on science”, the virus only infects after dark like a vampire stalking its victims.

MarkW
December 25, 2020 6:45 pm

1) These waves travel 100km per YEAR???? I gotta call BS on that one.
2) If these waves are travelling that slowly, nothing is going to notice when they pass by, not even methane hydrates.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2020 7:18 pm

They use models in the study…so…

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2020 7:28 pm

Not seismic waves, stress fracture propagation.

MarkW
Reply to  Paul of Alexandria
December 25, 2020 8:29 pm

Stress fractures do not travel slowly, nor do they travel with any kind of regularity,

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2020 10:38 pm

Correct. Anyone who has experienced an earthquake knows this.

Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2020 8:54 am

The tectonic waves under consideration /1,2/ with characteristic periods of 2,3,6,11 years and propagation velocities of 10–100 km/yr are extremely slow compared with seismic waves, but are sufficiently rapid in the tine scale of ordinary tectonic processes, comprising millions of years. The reality of the existence of such waves can be judged, for instance, from the recently detected /3/ change of the tectonic stresses (with an 11 year cycle and an amplitude of the order of 0.1 GPa) in the subductable lithospheric slabs. The characteristic shear modulus G of the lithosphere and the viscosity μ of the asthenosphere are estimated by the numbers 5.1010 Pa and 1020 Pa.sec, and 1010 Pa and 1016 Pa.sec, respectively; consequently, the relaxation time μ G, of processes in the lithosphere has the requisite order of from 1–30 years only for the “lithosphere + asthenosphere” complex. 1985 V.N.NikolayevskiiT.K.Ramazanov

Theory of fast tectonic waves

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2020 8:06 pm

That was my first reaction. On the other hand, some kind of process that involves the movement of magma could indeed take a long time to propagate.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
December 25, 2020 8:33 pm

While moving magma can cause tectonic movement, I don’t see how tectonic movement can cause movement of magma. Additionally tends to be plastic, if not downright fluid. Pushing it on one side doesn’t cause propagating waves that last for decades.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2020 12:25 pm

We are not talking about magma, but viscous flow in stressed mantle rocks and their effect on overlying crustal formations. E.g. isostatic rebound with melting of an ice sheet above it is still ongoing. A tectonic shock would initiate this type of viscous flow latterly beyond the area of fracturing.

Ron Long
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2020 1:39 am

MarkW, not only do they claim these tectonic waves travel slowly, but they would also appear to violate the inverse square law, wherein a force dissipates at the square of the distance travelled.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Ron Long
December 26, 2020 7:11 am

Well, there may be directionality to the “wave”, earthquake ruptures are typically linear events, in which case the inverse square diminishment is smaller as it pertains to a “focused” propagation. Say like a side emitting diode compared to a light bulb.

This is the first I’ve heard of tectonic waves but it makes sense that there would be quite a bit of stress imparted to a significant volume of crust by an earthquake, and that stress will be dissipated. I guess there is a wave going away both ways perpendicular to the axis of the rupture.

MarkW
Reply to  Randle Dewees
December 26, 2020 10:37 am

That earthquakes create waves was never in doubt. However all of the known waves travel at hundreds of miles per hour. Not per year.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2020 12:25 am

MarkW, yes, the waves we all know about – earth seismic waves (many thousand mph), and ocean waves (several hundred mph in deep water). This “wave” is something new to me, a mechanical stress wave, I guess, that propagates slowly.

I was just commenting on Ron’s comment from my radiometry point of view. I think inverse square applies to all energy dissipation in homogeneous media once at some distance from the source. That is, at long distance it becomes a point source. Close to the source the shape of the source is important. The other big factor here is propagation in inhomogeneous media.

The existence of such waves makes sense to me. And I would think there would be subtle consequences to metastable components of the crust. Do I agree with the premise that it caused the sudden warmings in the arctic? Don’t know, my gut is skeptical, but I’m interested in how this plays out.

Loydo
December 25, 2020 8:15 pm

Scraped from the very bottom of the “anything but CO2” barrel.

chemman
Reply to  Loydo
December 25, 2020 9:38 pm

CO2 or bust

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
December 25, 2020 10:39 pm

Well, you would know about scraping bottoms.

Mr.
Reply to  Loydo
December 25, 2020 10:53 pm

Yep.
And the other barrel bottom has the “everything is CO2”

Which is worse?

Loydo
Reply to  Mr.
December 26, 2020 12:17 am

There’s your problem: there is no “everything is CO2”, no one says that, you just made it up. On the other hand have you not noticed the hundreds of inane posts speculating about some mechanism or another – no matter how unlikely or repeatedly debunked – for the observed warming, but never, ever one about human emitted CO2 as the main cause. Single-minded ‘anything but CO2ism’.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 4:51 am

More EMPTY MINDLESS yabbering from Loy DUMB

There are plenty of proven mechanisms for the NATURAL WARMING from the COLDEST period in 10,000 years

And as you has shown OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again…..

…. there is NO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for warming by atmospheric CO2.

Here’s your chance, empty sock-puppet..

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 10:38 am

I see Loydo doesn’t read the literature his own side puts out.
The everything is caused by CO2 meme is about the only thing his fellow travelers have left.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 2:10 pm

Loydo, NASA calls CO2 THE “Control Knob” for Catastrophic Anthropo Global Warming. If this has changed, they would be obliged to say so as professionals. And don’t forget they have been 95% sure for two decades.

I’m glad you don’t think so. It gives you credibility (I really mean that) because even with a most generous perspective on the issue by a thinking person not of the discipline, ‘control knob’ on such a complex system is logically a bridge too far.

Dare one hope that your frequent visits here have helped modify your view just a little. We have had a few and probably even such as James Lovelock (Gaia Hypothesis), Michael Schellenberger and Michael Moore were certainly aware of this acclaimed site. I’ve found over many years that what works best in assessing an issue is to be sceptical by default and change a little at a time grudgingly based on performance of a hypothesis. This is basically science 101 and not my personal invention.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 25, 2020 11:14 pm

Do you have anything intelligent to say Loydo, or is are is senseless snark all your being paid for these days?

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2020 12:18 am

Indeed, indeed, the irony.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 4:52 am

Poor EMPTY minded litlle Loy

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
You cannot remain EMPTY and mindless all your life, surely !!!

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 10:40 am

Yet further down the rabbit hole of insanity falls the self promoted Loydo.

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 1:23 am

Loydo,

Have you ever considered CO2 may not be the cause and, if so, what were your grounds for rejection?

Loydo
Reply to  Redge
December 26, 2020 2:03 am

“…CO2…the cause…?” Pretty vague question Redge. If you’re referring to Arctic sea-ice decline and the abrupt transistion out of neo-glaciation in general then yes of course. I’ve looked closely at all the possible causes but I am not qualified to rule things in or out so I tend to follow the peer-reviewed studies published in credible journals for a lead and they overwhelmingly say anthropogenic CO2 is highly likely to be the most dominant forcing. What’s your best guess?

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 2:56 am

So you follow only peer-reviewed studies in credible journals. Ok, that’s a start, well done.

Could you point to the paper/journal you follow which clearly shows anthropogenic CO2 is highly likely to be the most dominant forcing, please?

Loydo
Reply to  Redge
December 26, 2020 3:48 am

Perhaps you could follow your own advice and figure that out for yourself.

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 4:11 am

Good point, Loydo, I’ll do that now:

There isn’t one.

Although you missed an opportunity to educate all of us here at WUWT.

Worse than we thought, you’ve shown yourself to be someone who not only can’t think for themself but one of the vast numbers of sheeple who now troll the internet trying to force your own beliefs on others.

Come back when you’ve learnt something you can show us to be wrong.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 4:56 am

Loy dumb has just admitted that he is incapable of finding a single piece of actual scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

Still just make BASELESS MIND-NUMBED zero-science yapping sounds.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 10:43 am

IN other words, Loydo was lying when he claims that he only reads peer reviewed pieces in qualified journals.

Rockwa
Reply to  Loydo
December 27, 2020 5:59 am

C’mon Loydo. Stop being a tease. Have the courage of your convictions and take the opportunity to dazzle your legion of followers with your brilliance. Cite just one significant paper that you hold up as undeniable proof of your position.

Rockwa
Reply to  Rockwa
December 28, 2020 2:25 am

Loydo you’re letting me down. I was certain you would have a trove of peer reviewed papers from world renowned journals at your finger tips. What’s going on mate? How hard can it be to produce just one? How do I explain to my panic stricken children that you are full of ….?

Rockwa
Reply to  Rockwa
December 30, 2020 1:04 am

C’mon Loydo. Walk the talk. Open yourself up to scrutiny like many on this site are happy to do. Got your scaredy pants on all of a sudden?

Redge
Reply to  Redge
December 27, 2020 6:11 am

Waiting for an answer from Loydo

tumbleweed.gif
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 4:54 am

And yet you cannot produce ONE SINGLE PIECE OF MEASURED EVIDENCE

CO2 warming only exists in erroneous conjectures and GIGO models.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 5:26 am

“If you’re referring to Arctic sea-ice decline”

The FACT that Arctic sea ice extent is still FAR HIGHER than nearly all of the last 10,000 years, makes you comment trite, empty and meaningless.

Be VERY THANKFUL that the planet has warmed NATURALLY out of the COLDEST of periods.

The benefits for all life on Earth have been enormous

Even though there are still very high levels of Arctic sea ice, life not seen since the MWP is now coming back to the Arctic.

Not only is the land surface GREENING, but the seas are also springing BACK to life after being TOO COLD and frozen over for much of the last 500 or so years (coldest period of the Holocene)

The drop in sea ice slightly toward the pre-LIA levels has opened up the food supply for the nearly extinct Bowhead Whale, and they are returning to the waters around Svalbard.

https://partner.sciencenorway.no/arctic-ocean-forskningno-fram-centre/the-ice-retreats–whale-food-returns/1401824

The Blue Mussel is also making a return, having been absent for a few thousand years, apart from a brief stint during the MWP.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701?journalCode=hola

Many other species of whale are also returning now that the sea ice extent has dropped from the extreme highs of the LIA. Whales cannot swim on ice. !

https://blog.poseidonexpeditions.com/whales-of-svalbard/

Why do you continue to be like griff and hate all life on Earth, and want to see plants starved of CO2 and Arctic sea creatures frozen out all year?

Its truly detestable. !

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 10:42 am

It never ceases to amaze me how individuals on one hand claim that they aren’t qualified to rule things in or out, then turn around and reject the work of any scientist that doesn’t conform to what they want to believe.

It’s either self delusion of mythical proportions, or a rather pathetic attempt to lie themselves out of a corner.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 4:47 am

Poor Loy DUMB

Still has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of warming by atmospheric CO2….. ..

So has to argue from a basis of ABJECT IGNORANCE……

Care to try to answer those two question, you poor ineffectual muppet !!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

We have been waiting .. like…. FOR EVAH !!

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 5:17 am

Two different flavors of Climate Scientology…. how interesting.

Loydo, you understand that there are true believers in L. Ron Hubbard’s divinity who disagree over some of the nastier aspects and political disagreements some of them have with the Church of Scientology, don’t you? Belief in Heresy is just one of those things that naturally happens to all true believers who exhibit a forced sense of certainty. Instead of striving for certainty, why don’t you try for a better capability to be comfortable with ambiguity? Science can still be your friend, and our TRUE beliefs can’t really hurt you, only the other believers can do that.

Ron Ginzler
Reply to  Mickey Reno
December 26, 2020 7:33 pm

Mickey Reno, I get your point and agree with it about Loydo, but your analogy with Scientology leads me to believe the mainstream media have misled you, as they have many others, about this religion. I have studied Scientology for 45 years, read thousands of pages of L. Ron Hubbard’s writings and listened to hundreds of hours of his lectures. Nowhere does he assert he has any kind of divinity beyond any normal person, nor do Scientologists regard him this way. The Church of Scientology is non-political, as clearly stated in a policy L. Ron Hubbard wrote in the 1960’s titled “Politics, Freedom From.” He also wrote, in an article called “Personal Integrity, “If it isn’t true for you, it isn’t true.” He encouraged skepticism. Study the source material, what he wrote and said, not secondary sources. Then judge for yourself.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Ron Ginzler
December 29, 2020 2:28 pm

Ron Ginzler, the so-called main stream media says a lot of stuff, most of it BS. My understanding of the cult of Scientology is hard earned from my own personal experience and reading the same HCOPLs you read. Of course, I’ve read them as an intellectual pursuit, never as a believer. LRH was a con man who said many things, most of them BS. In spite of the obviousness (to me) of that BS, how many Scientologists line up and clap at his portrait at the end of the day? All of them, or they get kicked out. That seems akin to an act of worship, to me. Plus Hubbard told the portrait artist he wanted his followers to worship his image, just as he said, the way to make real money was to start a religion.

Now climate alarmists are starting to demand the same kind of peer pressure and shaming tech that Scientology uses to correct, punish and/or silence it’s heretics, called “Suppressive Persons.” Many influential and powerful people, such as David Suzuki, Congress critter Sheldon Whitehouse and RKF Jr. want to imprison climate D-Nye-ers. I almost feel like I’m at Scientology’s Hemet Gold Base, waiting to do my time in the RPF Hole (RPF=rehabillitation project force, a discipline and punishment program for misbehaving Sea Org Scientologists; the Hole is Hemet’s punishment venue for the very highest ranking Scientologists, located in a double-wide trailer building. See Leah Remini’s series for more info). This is why I sometimes call climate alarmists Climate Scientologists.

Reply to  Loydo
December 27, 2020 8:42 am

Still much better than ‘anything is caused by CO2’.

The Dark Lord
December 25, 2020 8:36 pm

Arctic warming measured with what ? 6 locations ? maybe …

ATheoK
December 25, 2020 8:54 pm

To test his hypothesis, Lobkovsky had to answer three questions.

First, did the dates of the great earthquakes coincide with temperature jumps?

Second, what is the mechanism that enables the lithospheric disturbances to propagate over more than 2,000 kilometers from the Aleutian Islands to the Arctic shelf region?

Third, how do these disturbances intensify methane emissions?”

Lobkovsky did not answer any of these questions.
Lobkovsky instead, speculated and wrote a model containing his speculations.

To no-one’s surprise, Lobkovsky’s model performed as Lobkovsky desired.

“The answer to the first question came from historical data analysis. It turned out that the Aleutian Arc was indeed the site of two series of great earthquakes in the 20th century (more details below the text). Each of them preceded an abrupt rise in temperature by about 15 to 20 years.”

N.B. that Lobkovsky does not provide evidence of what or where constitutes “abrupt rise in temperature”.
Nor is the delay of 15-20 years explained.

It took a model of lithospheric excitation dynamics to answer the second question. The model used by the researcher describes the propagation of so-called tectonic waves and predicts that they should travel at about 100 kilometers per year.”

This agrees with the delay between each of the great earthquake series and the subsequent temperature hike, as it took the disturbances 15 to 20 years to get transmitted over 2,000 kilometers.

Nice bait and switch there. Predict the existence of a very slow “tectonic wave” yet fail to explain just how this “tectonic wave” actually causes the alleged warming.

“To answer the third question, the researcher proposed the following explanation: The deformation waves arriving in the shelf zone cause minor additional stresses in the lithosphere, which are sufficient to disrupt the internal structure of the metastable gas hydrates and permafrost storing captured methane. This releases methane into the water of the shelf and atmosphere”

Where has this CH₄ release in quantities sufficient to raise atmospheric temperatures been measured?
Just more speculation.

Note that Lobkovsky fails to explain how a very slow tectonic wave traveling 100 kilometers per year causes sufficient stress at the ocean’s floor surface to destabilize gas hydrates.
100 kilometers per year is approximately two kilometers per week, or 274.7 meters per day, or approximately 191 millimeters per minute.

1) sloppy correlation claims.
2) speculation regarding tectonic waves.
3) self satisfaction model to validate Confirmation Bias.
4) specious cause and effect claims.

Loydo
Reply to  ATheoK
December 25, 2020 10:10 pm

You nailed that. But what possible motive – other than transparent, disingenuous doubt-mongering – could there be for posting fringe speculation like this at all? Sincere, open-minded inquiry maybe? lol.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
December 25, 2020 10:40 pm

All you have to do, Loydo, is show CO2 is *THE* driver of climate change.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 25, 2020 11:19 pm

Loydo really does get his panties in a wad whenever bad science gets blown out of the water.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2020 12:10 am

Mmm, only here does “science get blown out of the water”.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 12:42 am

Loydo, you have deliberately misquoted MarkW by omitting the word “bad”. Going by your many posts here, it is pretty obvious that you don’t know the difference between science and bad science.

Loydo
Reply to  Bill Toland
December 26, 2020 1:50 am

Yes, it was sloppy, so I will apologise to Mark for mis-quoting him. But I don’t know what else he thinks “you nailed it” could mean.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 5:01 am

Your thoughts and posts are ALWAYS sloppy.

They are not based on ANY sound science, but on brain-washed mantra anti-science speculation.

You have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Time for you to ADMIT to that FACT

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 10:47 am

I notice Loydo isn’t honest enough to quote what I actually said.
How typical.

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 1:31 am

1) sloppy correlation claims.
2) speculation regarding tectonic waves.
3) self satisfaction model to validate Confirmation Bias.
4) specious cause and effect claims.

Wow, Loydo, just for a moment remove “regarding tectonic waves” and think about what you have agreed with.

Loydo
Reply to  Redge
December 26, 2020 1:52 am

Spell it out for me Redge.

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 2:37 am

No, I’ll let you figure out that one for yourself

fred250
Reply to  Redge
December 26, 2020 5:03 am

Loy is NOT CAPABLE of figuring anything out for itself.

It KNOWS he has no evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, but its little brain-washed green-sludge mind CANNOT accept that FACT.

Redge
Reply to  fred250
December 26, 2020 5:39 am

With respect, Fred, I appreciate you have strong feelings towards Loydo’s beliefs but I don’t think she will be led along the path of enlightenment by name-calling and shouting.

fred250
Reply to  Redge
December 26, 2020 1:33 pm

Things like SCIENCE and RATIONAL THOUGHT have absolutely no effect on Loy.

There is no path toward REALITY for Loy..

REALITY is an unacceptable state of mind for him/her/it.

MarkW
Reply to  Redge
December 26, 2020 10:49 am

Recently Loydo refused to name even one of the “quality” peer reviewed publications that he uses to inform his opinions.

Now he’s demanding that others “spell it out” for him.

Redge
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2020 2:06 pm

I know, Mark, it was me who asked her

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 10:48 am

In other words, Loydo is admitting he has no idea what he’s talking about and hopes that through mindless repetition he can wear out those who refute him.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2020 4:43 pm

Loy says NOTHING that needs refuting

Always just baseless ASSumptions/presumptions/innuendo…

Unbacked by any real empirical science

One may as well be asked to refute a Grimm Bros fairy-tale.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 26, 2020 4:59 am

But all you have is SPECULATION, loy-dumb

You HAVE NO EVIDENCE

Warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

Your mind is TOTALLY CLOSED to that FACT.

Care to make an attempt at actually providing some evidence

You are an empty sock in that respect so far.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
December 25, 2020 11:17 pm

Why limit your search for earthquakes to the Aleutian Island arc. There have been many Arctic earthquakes not located in the Aluetians, those two were also not the only earthquakes in the Aleutians. Either the theory works for all earthquakes, or it doesn’t work.

MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
December 25, 2020 11:28 pm

Another thing they never did was show that there was any increase in methane in the atmosphere. Methane has been measured for years. If there were any spikes, then they should show up in the record.

Take a small sampling of all earthquakes in the region.
Speculate on the existence of a heretofore unknown pressure wave.
Speculate that your proposed pressure wave bends the rocks enough to be detectable at the surface.
Speculate that this bending is sufficient to cause methane hydrates to burp out a massive amount of methane.
Speculate that this burp of methane will make it to the surface.
Speculate that whatever methane that makes it to the ocean surface will be sufficient to be the cause of measured temperature spikes.
Speculate that this methane will stay in the Arctic rather than be spread around the rest of the N. hemisphere by the winds.

Who was it, a couple of days ago, that was getting bent out of shape because we were questioning papers that have made it through the peer review process?

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
Kazinski
December 25, 2020 10:12 pm

Seems completely incoherent and unphysical. First of all the mechanism of the warming is still greenhouse gases, and like CO2 according to NASA “methane mixes into the atmosphere rapidly.” So local methane concentrations can’t be the cause.

Lrp
Reply to  Kazinski
December 25, 2020 11:43 pm

Indeed, the localised effect of methane emission appears to be the weakest part of the hypothesis, but if the tectonic waves are akin to stress/strain lines the methane emissions themselves can be seen as the effects of something similar to fracking.

Alex
December 25, 2020 11:20 pm

Has anybody ever MEASURED these ridiculously slow waves?

Peta of Newark
December 26, 2020 12:32 am

Got to be some of the most contrived garbage evah
He’s on something stronger than vodka that’s fo’sure.

But but but, Blue Sky Thinking ##

There is “The Atlantic Conveyor”
What would happen if there were rumblings on the ocean floor beneath it.
Not really an if, it does cross the Mid ‘lantic Ridge and go past Iceland.

Not very least didn’t Iceland unleash that volcano with the ubpronouncable name – whenever it and not long ago. Also, if there are rumblings in the convolution islands, maybe some heat is on the move elsewhere?

So, ocean floor warms up due to this activity, ‘some’ slightly warmer than normal water is created down there
It can only rise towards the surface and is ‘picked up’ by The Conveyor.

If the warm water is just (hardly) tepid and not really really warm, like millions of C as per Algore or even stupor heated steem, it won’t be very buoyant and the conveyor would carry if a long way before it reached the surface.
To all intents, what happens to plumes of warm air in the atmosphere, Saharan Plumes reaching the UK as happens sometimes

Would this warm water get to the surface under the Arctic Ice for example? It is where The Conveyor ‘terminates not least.

KISS KISS

## No gauna guanas in Old Blighty – just some mystery white stuff came falling from da sky.
It drove the kids crazy wondering what it was.

There may be hope and despite the very best efforts of what passes for Science & Education these days – they quickly got a (sledge) handle on it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55445380

(See Hexham, I used to take my cows to the auction mart at Hexham)

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
December 26, 2020 12:53 am

The recovery from the LIA reduced Arctic ice cover which lightened the ice load over seismically active regions which allowed greater seismic instability.
The paper confuses correlation with causation.

fred250
December 26, 2020 4:43 am

“a new explanation for the Arctic’s rapid warming”

Ummm.. what rapid warming ??

UAH shows COOLING from 1980-1995

comment image

then a slight rise over the period of the 1997/8

Then a basically ZERO TREND until the large spike at 2015 Big Blob/El Nino event

comment image

Only “rapid” warming is either invented..

… or comes from smear urban heat effects from widely separated growing towns.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
December 26, 2020 2:53 pm

They are referring to the rapid warming that occurred prior to the arctic being adequately measured.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2020 3:44 pm

Arctic has been measured well since the 1920s at least

comment image

Coldest period inn the late 1970s

Warm in the 1940s…. similar to now

Since 1980.. some places show warming, some cooling

…… average has no warming

Arctic compilations show the same thing

comment image

As does Hadcrud

comment image

fred250
December 26, 2020 5:18 am

I find the match between the normalised oceans seismic activity, lagged 2 years and the UAH atmospheric temperature , VERY interesting.

comment image

Farbetter correlation than anything to do with atmospheric CO2

Seismic activity has dropped to about 1998 levels over the last couple of years.

It would be interesting to see a corresponding drop in temperature.

Richard M
Reply to  fred250
December 26, 2020 11:09 am

The lag could be due to the effects of El Nino. If the seismic events were driven by geological forces that also drive El Nino events then it would explain the correlation. If true, what exactly are these geological forces and what drives them?

This would explain a lot but would be extremely inconvenient for the climate alarmists. Don’t look for any real research in this area to occur.

fred250
Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2020 1:37 pm

Yep, the mechanism of causation is not at all obvious, so I make no claims of anything except it being a very interesting correlation.

Fortunately, research outside the AGW mantra still has some small funding.

Tom Abbott
December 26, 2020 6:35 am

From the article: “Since researchers began to monitor temperatures in the Arctic, the region has seen two periods of abrupt warming: first in the 1920s and ’30s, and then beginning in 1980 and continuing to this day.”

There’s the 1930’s showing up again as being just as warm as it is today.

If the 1930’s were as warm as today, and they were, then that means we are not currently experiencing unprecedented warming, and that means that CO2 is a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperature. We are no warmer now than then, yet CO2 has increased during that period,so one has to think that CO2 has had little effect on the Earth’s temperatures.

Temperatures even fell during the period from 1940 to 1980, while at the same time CO2 concentrations were increasing.

Obviously, CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s atmosphere and temperature. A little common sense goes a long way.

On the outer Barcoo
December 26, 2020 7:24 am

“Global warming is one of the pressing issues faced by civilization.” Really? Perhaps a much more pressing and immediate concern is the untold millions that have lost their livelihoods, savings and jobs in the current ‘pandemic’.

2hotel9
December 26, 2020 8:19 am

If those earthquakes are opening volcanic vents under Arctic Sea I guess it could warm it some. Since the Arctic is covered in ice and snow, same as usual, I don’t see the problem.

Gary Wayne Meyers
December 26, 2020 9:20 am

Reverse engineering bs!

Shanghai Dan
December 26, 2020 10:47 am

See! It’s now proven! Fracking causes climate change! We’ve heard over and over that fracking causes earthquakes, and now earthquakes are causing climate change, so…

Fracking! Ban fracking! It’s for the children!

Gary Pearse
December 26, 2020 11:52 am

Some skepticism about the slow moving pressure waves. Perhaps the slow moving isostatic rebound from the melt off-load of the Glacial Maximum (still ongoing) is a similar type of pressure wave. It is essentially the viscous flow of the crustal formations and the mantle rock beneath that had been expelled by the overlying weight of ice.

Ulric Lyons
December 26, 2020 6:36 pm

The cause of great earthquakes is shared with the cause of Arctic warming. Series of great earthquakes occurred around the Mediterranean during grand solar minima 1250-1195 BC and 350-390 AD, accompanied by strong Arctic warming.

%d bloggers like this: