Time's Up

Throughout the course of writing this blog, I was inundated with abrupt headlines such as “Did climate change cause the Haiti earthquake?” and “Does climate change mean more tsunamis?”. These reports tended to feature a battle between environmentalists who propose that the increase in natural hazards is yet another unintentional repercussion of fossil fuel consumption, and their opposition who mock them for patent fear-mongering. Ultimately, neither side is proven wrong. The outcome of my research has steered me to the conclusion that the concept of climate change affecting crustal processes should not be ridiculed, but neither should it be wholly supported.  A contradiction exists whereby the isostatic rebound theory provides rationality to the link between climate change and the geosphere, despite being highly unlikely to have been the cause of recent extreme events.

It is not surprising that many view this topic with suspicion. After all, climate change notoriously involves the increase of global average temperatures bringing about meteorological imbalances linked to droughts, storms, melting ice caps etc. What lies behind this apparent misconception is very interesting science. I have investigated recent extreme events such as the Haiti earthquake, the Japanese tsunami and the Eyjafjallojokull eruption and can collectively include that these were triggered by a force stronger than climate change. In each instance, the catastrophe has occurred in a tectonically active region where the fault rupture is purely a result of a typical return period. The broader frequency of earthquakes shows no change, which suggests that it must be our awareness. Today, technology and connectedness allow tectonic activity to be monitored and reported instantly. Additionally, the expansion of urban cities means that the destruction caused by a catastrophic event appears far more deadly, and this means you’re likely to witness more coverage of global earthquakes and eruptions on the evening news.

Moreover, in relation to the aforementioned recent catastrophes, no significant climate evidence can be effectively compared. Having said this, my post that covered fracking in the UK presents undisputable evidence of how human drilling operations can induce minor tremors. Certainly, this example has me persuaded that mankind’s interference on crustal dynamics should not be underestimated.  The human mastery of the earth’s surface using high-tech machinery (my term for this being ‘Techno-tonics”) is detrimental and is a likely to become a prominent characteristic of the anthropocene.

In summary, there is evidence that a naturally occurring climate change in the past was to blame for periods of increased tectonic activity, which coincided spatially and temporally with mass glacial melt. It therefore seems sensible not to dismiss the claim that anthropogenic climate change could be doing the same today. I set out to assemble evidence that could contradict my initially sceptical stance on the topic. After an intensive plunge into the literature, a wide review of news stories and a highly profitable chat with Bill McGuire I have found myself sympathetic to the environmentalists. It is far more absurd to deny the geospheric link to climate than to endorse it. No, we do not face an apocalyptic threat of a furious planet retaliating to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect; in fact it is probable that most of us will never experience a climate-driven natural hazard. Conclusively, whilst the science is yet to quantify the relationship between climate and hazards as well as the fact that any consequence will be minimal, I have reason to believe that in certain regions we could see more climate change-related events.

"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were"
 - John F. Kennedy