Project Infopowerment by Scott Owen

Scott Owen hosts a radio podcast and YouTube channel called 'Believers Underground'. The primary topic he covers is the post-glacial rebound theory and he has been called upon to explain this phenomenon in several online videos. Owen often alludes to pessimistic notions of sinking landmasses however his justifications about post-glacial melt impacts is intriguing. A particularly useful broadcast to listen to features Scott Owen as a guest on another online climate channel talking about isostatic rebound in response to glacial melt. 

I have included a link to the Believers Underground blog site below. The particular podcast that I have linked is one i recommend as it covers the elaborate topic of MEGA quakes and SUPER volcanoes! Scott Owen takes a decisive controversial stance whereby he candidly blames the elite's disregard for humanity for destroying our planet.

http://believersunderground.whynotnews.eu/?p=30

All Quiet on the Blogosphere

I have come to notice that there is very meagre amount of attention on the internet to the field of climate change science surrounding its potential to increase the frequency of catastrophic events. It is somewhat surprising that despite #climatechange being amongst the top ten trending topics on twitter in 2011, I have struggled to find electronic awareness on the geological impact. Having said this, this realm of science remains in its infancy having been first pioneered only relatively recently. Out of the few mentions I found on twitter, below is an example of futurologists are beginning to introduce the concept:

Terminology such as 'isostatic rebound' are only just being incorporated into climate change discourse. Obviously, the science behind global warming causing more extreme weather conditions (hurricanes, droughts etc) is thoroughly tested and widely acknowledged. However surely when this idea was first proposed it took a while before it was understood and accepted? Whilst awareness appears to be lacking on geological impacts, already keen scientists are managing to provoke interest by means of twitter:

'Global Rumblings' is a compelling blogspot site which asks - '2012 - Will it change the world as we know it? Why so many earthquakes? Tornadoes? Disasters?' Its purpose is to provide commentary on the causes, impacts and patterns of contemporary disasters. The aptly titled blog focuses on earthquake activity however extends to all forms of worldwide disturbances ranging from supervolcano eruptions to fireballs in space. Global Rumblings appears to be the primary source for up to date hazard information in the blogosphere and one particular reason for its mention is for the post 'Earthquakes and Climate' which was posted in March 2011. This segment was written two years after the author first theorised about earthquakes and climate in an article published in 2009. Within the two years, a significant amount of work has been done (enough in fact to allow me to produce a blog solely dedicated to the research) that shows the field of science is growing. Given another two years I predict far more evidence will have been obtained and the topic's obscurity will be a thing of the past. 

Earthquakes in Real Time

Today I came across a fascinating website produced by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) that allows the user to check out all the latest earthquake activity. Whilst not alluding to the mechanisms that trigger the quakes (i.e. climate change), the website is an invaluable tool for anyone interested in keeping up to date with global seismic activity. Having browsed the earthquakes of the last 30 days, I was startled at the number of unreported earthquakes that are taking place each day. For example, it is barely 10 am and already there have been five recorded events this morning - including a magnitude 5.2 in Fiji Islands as well as a 6.6 in Russia yesterday evening. I then scrolled down and noticed a shocking 11 earthquakes struck on christmas day; four of which were in Japan.

Theoretically, I was aware that magnitude 4-5 quakes were happening regularly within tectonic zones, but this website put seismic activity in perspective for me. When looking at the IRIS Seismic Monitor map, spatial distribution of earthquake activity is easily discernible, and by marking the quakes in terms of when they happened illuminates current seismic action and clustering as can be seen in the screenshot below. All in all, I believe this is an excellent visual tool to be appreciated by anyone who has even a vague regard for global geological hazards. The link to the home page is below and I strongly advocate having a glance. 

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

Illustrating Our Threatened Future

In the face of climate change, it is the high latitudes that are set to suffer the most. The effects of anthropogenic global warming will be greater, as will the potential for geological and geomorphological hazards due to loss of ice mass. In accordance with a previous post of mine, Greenland and Antarctica will suffer from the repercussions of isostatic rebound which in turn can trigger earthquakes and potentially tsunamigenic submarine landslides. Similarly, melting of ice has notably triggered a volcanic response in Iceland and Alaska. Stewart et al.(2000) discovered that a 1 km ice load has the potential to allow rebound of hundreds of metres with accompanying stresses equal to plate-driving forces. Even a minor temperature climb in high latitudes can instigate hazardous ice melt even on a small-scale due to its sensitivity to change. The figure below [taken from McGuire, 2010] summaries the notable high latitude ice sheets and mountainous regions that are particularly vulnerable to temperature increases as well as their likely associated hazards. 

Introducing 'Ice Quakes'

The concept of an ‘ice quake’ has been introduced as an additional threat to high latitude regions and has been affiliated with the break up of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antartica. Ekstrom et al. (2003) presents the way glaciers and ice streams can occasionally “lurch forward” with a force strong enough to let loose elastic waves. This is powerful enough to be detectable on seismometers across the world. The energy wielded by these glacial earthquakes in Greenland and West Antarctica can instigate markedly more forceful tsunamis than a submarine earthquake of an equal magnitude (Song, 2009)*. ‘Ice quakes’ have seasonal patterns and the rate of occurrence has doubled over the last five years. Such temporal trends signify the link to the hydrological cycle and show how the glacial environment is responding to  anthropogenic climate change. McGuire (2010) has referenced how ‘ice quakes’ are likely to become a particular threat to high latitudes in the future, especially in Chile, New Zealand and Newfoundland (Canada). 

*Song, T. 2009. Glacial earthquake tsunami - a consequence of climate change. In: Proceedings, 3rd Johnston-Lavis Colloquium: Climate forcing of Geological and Geomorphological Hazards, University College London (Abstract).

An Intraplate Mystery

So far, I have failed to stress the incomparable value of using models to simulate and predict geospheric responses to climate. A study of particular importance is that of Grollimund and Zoback (2001) whose model was designed to explore the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet as a cause of intraplate seismicity in New Madrid. The Laurentide ice sheet was a prominent feature of the last ice age covering most of Canada and much of North America. At its peak it covered 5 million sq miles and has been a major influence on climate throughout the Quaternary. The map below shows the seismic zone - incorporating the background seismicity and the extent of Reelfoot Ridge.

Paleoliquefaction data have shown that the New Madrid seismic zone experienced three major earthquakes in 1811-12 which appeared to occur on a 200-900 yr cycle prior to the seventeenth century event. The paleo reconstructions contain evidence of severe liquefaction likely to have been caused by a magnitude 7.5 quake or greater. Considering the region does not sit above a plate boundary, a significant trigger must have been present. Accordingly, there have been several proposed theories seeking to explain this phenomenon: a stress concentration from the nearby rift valley (Grana & Richardson, 1996), locally elevated heat flow inducing strain in the lower crust/upper mantle (Liu & Zoback, 1997) and a weak subhorizontal fault above the rift pillow  (Stuart et al., 1997). Nevertheless, these aforementioned hypotheses are unable to explain the sudden seismic upsurge during the Holocene.

The temporal match between the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet (between 19-8 ka) and the escalation of seismic activity prompted James and Bent (1994) to first suggest deglaciation as an alternative theory. Using simple ice-sheet geometry, they noticed that the loss of glacial cover could modify levels of strain several hundred kilometres away. In an attempt to further examine how the Laurentide ice sheet dynamics could have affected seismicity in New Mexico, Grollimun and Zoback (2001) created a three-dimensional finite element model to more accurately simulate lithospheric properties and interactions between large-scale tectonics, deglaciation and the geology.

The main findings of the study concluded that “the perturbation caused by ice loading is to suppress seismicity, whereas ice melting enhances seismic strain release”. The bending of the lithosphere under the weight of ice causes north-south stress beneath the New Madrid seismic zone. This bend generates a shortening of the lower lithosphere in a north-south direction, and an east-west extension. It is the deformation of the lower lithosphere that transmits stress to the upper crust and promotes brittle failure observed in the Holocene seismic record. Overall, the model used in this study has allowed Grollimun and Zoback to say with confidence that the melting Laurentide ice sheet was at least partly responsible for intraplate seismicity in 1811-12. They also conclude that rates of seismic strain in the anthropocene are likely to match high rates of the early Holocene and therefore warn of the high risk of anomalous seismic hazards in the future. 

Global Warming: the Money-Maker

To this point, I have painted the picture that a verification of global warming’s effect on earthquakes and volcanoes would be unwelcome news. This does not apply to everyone: in particular the insurance companies who have already begun to put a price tag on natural catastrophes. Whilst politicians and scientists have not obtained sufficient evidence to blame tectonic plate disasters on global warming, this has not stopped the insurance industry pouncing on the latest money-making scheme.

This movement began in 2008 when a study by Ernst & Young coined global warming as “the greatest strategic risk currently facing the property/casualty insurance industry”. The acceptance that all natural disasters from hurricanes to tsunamis are ‘man-made’ has unleashed a plethora of litigants to take to court. 2011 has by far been the most costly year, with the cost of disasters surpassing previous years within the first six months. The majority of this expense came from the Japanese tsunami which was ultimately valued at $210 million. In an absurd statement about the 8.9 earthquake that devastated Japan, the EU’s Economic and Social Committee president said the following:

“The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the regions. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity – not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that this is what we need to do”

It is comments like this that give the public a false impression. In a way, it indoctrinates readers to the extent that pure fact are ignored; we can say with certainty that Japan sits atop a subduction zone and is therefore notoriously at risk of major quakes but this is not mentioned in the statement above. This ignorance is abused by big businesses who see global warming as a profitable tool to exploit. 

The Melting Alps

It’s time to sidestep away from tectonically-driven hazards and examine the future implications of climate change on mountain environments. By investigating the Eastern European Alps, Keiler et al. (2010) have observed the increased frequency and magnitude of natural mountain hazards; namely rock falls, debris flows, landslides and avalanches. These aforesaid changes originate from the climatic impact on land-surface stability. As identified in the Alps, anthropogenic global warming has successfully been correlated with long term changes in high-alpine temperature, precipitation, glacier cover and permafrost. 

Alpine systems and high relief areas suffer from being particularly sensitive to climate change due to:

• High elevation snowcover causing feedbacks that amplify climatic impacts
• Albedo
• Heat budgets
• Slope angle and aspect
• Sediment availability
• Slope moisture supply

Aside from regional changes and significant seasonal differences, temperature in the Alps since the nineteenth century has exhibited an increase that is twice as much as the global average (Vavrus, 2007). Estimates for future temperature change expect a further increase by an average of 0.3-0.5^oC.

Monitoring of geomorphological hazards on the Alps has been ongoing for decades, amounting to a rich archive of incidences when climate forcing has directly impacted the region. The chronology of past events shows that products of slope instability can be attributed to a combination of both human activity and climate variability (Stoffel et al., 2008). Human activities – including land management – play a minor role in comparison to the force exerted by relentless climate change.

The emerging warm, dry winters can be effectively paralleled to the mass of glaciers in the Alps. The glaciers had been slowly advancing up until 1980, which saw a shift to full retreat. The melting of glaciers can be tied in with the loss of permafrost across the Alps’ extensive mountain range. This supportive layer is responsible for reinforcing the mountain’s structure and its absence has already been held liable for deadly rockfalls in Matterhorn, Switzerland and avalanches in Austria. In response to the mass rescue of 70 mountaineers in Matterhorn, the International Permafrost Association met to conclude that: 

“…the ground temperature in the Alps around the Matterhorn has risen considerably over the past decade. The ice that holds mountain slopes and rock faces together is simply disappearing. At this rate, it will vanish completely – with profound consequences”.

In the last ten years, the Alps have given scientists a preview of what might be expected in the future – the 2003 heatwave and the 2005 flood are indicative of the extreme events that might shake alpine regions. However, so far the hazards have been concentrated at high altitude where the settlements and infrastructure is small scale. Unfortunately, this also means that public awareness is limited. The effects of global warming have recently begun to gain attention as a very serious threat to the flourishing tourist industry in alpine regions. Normally, global climate models (GCMs) provide valuable predictions on future climate change but high fluctuations due to regional differences mean downscaled results are often plagued with uncertainty (Reichler & Kim, 2008). Course spatial resolution within the models is ineffective when dealing with the variable climatological effects of the mountainous Alps. Models also fail to simulate climate feedbacks and the extent of permafrost that controls much of the crysopheric system. Thus, it is apparent that further research is essential in order to understand these immensely complex mountain systems.

Where Can I Buy A Richter Scale?

A: The Richter scale is not a physical device, but a mathematical formula. The magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of waves recorded on a seismogram at a certain period. 

The above is just one of the farcical myths dispelled by the USGS in its online earthquake FAQ section. Another is the slightly less absurd claim that nuclear explosions can cause earthquakes which herein leads to the subject of this blog post. Whilst amending the misconception over a Richter scale’s true form is relatively straightforward, the link between bombs and seismicity is far more controversial.

To begin with, evidence has been presented that the Afghanistan earthquake of March 2002 was ultimately triggered by the high levels of bombing that was happening simultaneously. Suspicions arise when one questions how the Indian and Pakastani test sites could have had an influence from a distance of roughly 1000 km away. A given explanation is that the thermonuclear explosion somehow generated seismic waves, which traversed toward the epicentral region in Afghanistan to shake underlying geology and trigger the earthquake. Estimations show that one of the largest nuclear tests produced seismic waves with an elastic yield of 40 kiltons. In comparison to the Earth’s semi-diurnal tides produced by the gravitational forces of the Moon and Sun, the elastic strain of this nuclear explosion was around 100 times smaller. It therefore seems nonsensical to assume that smaller nuclear tests could trigger an earthquake from 1000 km away. One would expect earthquakes of comparable size to yield enough elastic strain to set off a succession of seismic events. Since no triggering of this type has been observed elsewhere, it appears to have been a mere coincidence that the nuclear testing and the earthquake occurred in spatial and temporal proximity.

Equally, throughout the seismic record there has been no indication that earthquakes increase in frequency after an episode of bombing. This has not discouraged some authorities to make accusations that ignore the aforementioned evidence. For instance, after a fatal earthquake-induced landslide was set loose from the Huascaran Mountains in May 1970, the Peruvian government declared that it was the fault of the French’s atomic tests in Mururoa Atoll. The unconvincing allegation is ludicrous, since the explosions in questions occurred on the other side of the Pacific! At first glance it seems plausible to assume that the tremendous pounding of a nuclear explosion could stir the continental plates (especially at faults close to fracturing), however it appears that direct and instantaneous human attacks fail to penetrate the crust. Clearly, despite the force of such bombardment is not as powerful as the addition of gradually increasing and ceaseless strain.

The case studies and information I collected prior to writing this blog are found in more complete detail in: "Nuclear Explosions and Earthquake, the Parted Veil" (1986), Bruce A. Bolt, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.

Icelandic Volcanoes: Take Two

I have recently come across a controversial article that has tested the validity of my previous appraisal relating the ability of melting ice caps to generate magma production deep below the earth’s crust. This new intelligence is in fact a direct response to the article that first sparked my interest in this topic.

The author of the retort, Steven Goddard credits that as stated in the original article, a direct relationship exists between melting point and pressure in magmas. Simply put – ‘as pressure increases, so does the melting point’. The phase diagram of basaltic magma below depicts this temperature/pressure link. Clearly, this shows that between 100 - 0 km depth, the melting point drops at least 300 ^oC (roughly 3^oC/km). Since ice is close to one third as dense as basaltic magma, it can be assumed that a removal of 1 km of ice would reduce the melting point by around 1^oC.

Goddard affixes as paper from the Carnegie Geophysical Institute, which produced an empirical measurement of the relationship for one basaltic mineral – diopiside. Where Tm is the melting point (^oC) and P is the pressure (atmospheres) the following relationship was discovered:

Tm = 1391.5 + 0.01297 * P

With this, Goddard is able to calculate that since one atmosphere of pressure equals roughly 10 metres of ice – the melting point would be increased by about 0.0013^oC with every additional metre of ice. Similarly, a loss of 100 metres would incur a decrease in melting point by one tenth of a degree. Interestingly, the peak thickness of Icelandic ice is only 500 metres, therefore a complete loss of the ice caps would cause an alteration in melting point by only around 0.5^oC (Bourgeois et al., 1998).

Conclusively, it does not seem plausible that this tiny reduction in melting point could stir up volcanic activity at such depths to generate major eruptions. It is unlikely that glaciers melting could substantially modify the rate at which magma is produced, which ultimately controls when an eruption takes place. Finally, Goddard concludes that a depletion of ice coverage would minimise the creation of steam and ash (ash forms when magma is cooled and fractured by steam). It therefore seems sensible to assume that a loss of glaciers would change the nature of Icelandic eruptions. Without large steam/ash cloud emissions, volcanoes would behave more like those in Hawaii and potentially be less destructive.