Was the 2010 Haiti Earthquake triggered by deforestation and the 2008 hurricanes?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:57 PM GMT on December 20, 2010

Share this Blog
11
+

Major earthquakes occur when the stress on rocks between two tectonic plates reaches a critical breaking point, allowing the earth to move along the connecting fault. While the slow creep of the tectonic plates makes earthquakes inevitable along major faults, the timing and exact location of the quake epicenter can be influenced by outside forces pushing down on Earth's crust. For example, the sloshing of water into the Eastern Pacific during El Niño events has been linked to magnitude 4, 5, and 6 earthquakes on the seafloor below, due to the extra weight of water caused by local sea level rise. Sea level rise due to rapid melting of Earth's ice sheets could also potentially trigger earthquakes, though it is unknown at what melting rate such an effect might become significant.


Figure 1. Google Earth image of Haiti taken November 8, 2010, showing the capital of Port-Au-Prince and the mountainous region to its west where the epicenter of the 2010 earthquake was. Note the brown color of the mountains, where all the vegetation has been stripped off, leaving bare slopes subject to extreme erosion. Heavy rains in recent years have washed huge amounts of sediment into the Leogane Delta to the north.


Figure 2. Zoom-in view of the Leogane Delta region of Figure 1, showing the large expansion in the Delta's area between 2002 and 2010. High amounts of sediments have been eroded from Haiti's deforested mountains and deposited in the Delta. Recent expansion of the river channel due to runoff from Hurricane Tomas' rains is apparent in the 2010 image. Image credit: Google Earth, Digital Globe, GeoEye.

At last week's American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting last week in San Francisco, Shimon Wdowinsky of the University of Miami proposed a different method whereby unusual strains on the crust might trigger an earthquake. In a talk titled, Triggering of the 2010 Haiti earthquake by hurricanes and possibly deforestation , Wdowinsky studied the stresses on Earth's crust over the epicenter of the mighty January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake that killed over 200,000 people. This quake was centered in a mountainous area of southwest Haiti that has undergone severe deforestation—over 98% of the trees have been felled on the mountain in recent decades, allowing extreme erosion to occur during Haiti's frequent heavy rainfall events. Since 1975, the erosion rate in these mountains has been 6 mm/year, compared to the typical erosion rate of less than 1 mm/yr in forested tropical mountains. Satellite imagery (Figure 2) reveals that the eroded material has built up significantly in the Leogane Delta to the north of the earthquake's epicenter. In the 2008 hurricane season, four storms--Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike--dumped heavy rains on the impoverished nation. The bare, rugged hillsides let flood waters rampage into large areas of the country, killing over 1,000, destroying 22,702 homes, and damaging another 84,625. About 800,000 people were affected--8% of Haiti's total population. The flood wiped out 70% of Haiti's crops, resulting in dozens of deaths of children due to malnutrition in the months following the storms. Damage was estimated at over $1 billion, the costliest natural disaster in Haitian history. The damage amounted to over 5% of the country's $17 billion GDP, a staggering blow for a nation so poor. Tragically, the hurricanes of 2008 may have set up Haiti for an ever larger disaster. Wdowinsky computed that the amount of mass eroded away from the mountains over the epicenter of the 2010 earthquake was sufficient to cause crustal strains capable of causing a vertically-oriented slippage along a previously unknown fault. This type of motion is quite unusual in this region, as most quakes in Haiti tend to be of the strike-slip variety, where the tectonic plates slide horizontally past each other. The fact that the 2010 Haiti quake occurred along a vertically moving fault lends support to the idea that the slippage was triggered due to mass stripped off the mountains by erosion over the epicenter, combined with the extra weight of the extra sediment deposited in the Leogane Delta clamping down on the northern portion of the fault. Wdowinsky gave two other examples in Taiwan where earthquakes followed several months after the passage of tropical cyclones that dumped heavy rains over mountainous regions. His theory of tropical cyclone-triggered quakes deserves consideration, and provides another excellent reason to curb excessive deforestation!


Figure 3. Two of 2008's four tropical cyclones that ravaged Haiti: Tropical Storm Hanna (right) and Hurricane Gustav (left). Image taken at 10:40 am EDT September 1, 2008. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.

Christmas in Haiti
Portlight.org will brighten the lives of hundreds of kids in Haiti this week, thanks to their successful Christmas in Haiti fundraiser. Portlight raised $1800 to buy toys, candies, and other assorted goodies. The shipment left Charleston last week, and will arrive in time for Christmas. Thanks to everyone who helped support this worthy effort!

Jeff Masters

Stuff for Haiti (Portlight)
Stuff for Haiti
Ms. Mae (Portlight)
Ms. Mae

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 626 - 576

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

Quoting Neapolitan:

Ah, I see you again failed to respond to the question: what's causing the planet's "natural warming trend" to which you referred? And now a follow-up: what will cause the coming ice age you predict?

What caused th efirst ice ages? What caused the dinosaurs to go extinct..
We look at evidence and make educated GUESSES..
WE ARE MAKING THE PLANET WARMER TO SOME DEGREE THROUGH URBAN HEATING..
We are most likely changing the weather patterns a bit in the densely populated areas
but every time I hear about CGW I want to say exactly what the post you responded to says..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Magnitude 7.4 - BONIN ISLANDS, JAPAN REGION
2010 December 21 17:19:41 UTC
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.."Tomorrow's just da future ..yesterday"..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The "iggy" and "Hide" features are getting a double dose workout.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting keywestdingding:
why is everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong. is this a weather blog or an ego battling blog? I say everyone is right to some degree and everyone is wrong to some degree. no one knows what's going to happen in 10 years or even one year. i know my little blog has no barring one anyone, just my two cents!!
Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas everyone.
i know i play a role in this post, but i'm just trying to get someone to prove they are right. i may have a sizable ego at the wheel to guide me on my quest, but effective dialogue is the end sought via such twisted means. by the hand of a particular blogger, effective dialogue is beyond comprehension at the moment. so forgive the space he and i waste during these ridiculous exchanges.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HurricaneKatrina:
All the way to exxon and royal dutch hell


Change that to billionaire and sheeple investors worldwide and you would be much closer to the truth.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I was lucky to have completely clear skies here in Miami as the lunar eclipse took place earlier this morning. The image below was taken at 3:17a.m EDT, which was roughly the exact time that the moon was at the center of the umbra.



A better image available at Wikipedia showcases a much more clearer view of the moon as it passed through the center umbra (image from Orlando, Florida).

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
Calusakat, my current comments are designed to mirror yours. I cannot use truth, nor address the issues when doing so simply because you have not.

Your meager attempts to cite a lack in certain protocols, and calling that addressing the issue is pitiful. There is so much information out there to counter your claims, and there has been much debate between bloggers here who ACTUALLY DO THEIR HOMEWORK.

But for me to mirror your posts, I have to come up with my retorts completely off the cuff. I can't provide any evidence to the contrary because you will just call those talking points out of the AGW handbook, call me sheeple, and then claim that all those figures and counterpoints are falsified anyway.

So there it is... look at my posts and see yourself. I am using you as a model here. I simply cannot provide an iota of evidence primarily because you have not done so. As soon as you start providing evidence, I'll follow suit. If anyone here is looking for the information neither one of us are posting, they can simply ignore the two of us and view the quality dialogue already present on this, and several days worth of blogs.



Twist and turn, tap the AGW dance all you want.

I am not the one who is proposing a new view...you are.

I do not have any homework to do because you and your AGW lemming friends have yet to give us free and unfettered access to the information and methodology that would allow us to decide one way or the other.

It is YOUR responsibility to prove your position is the correct one. The fact that I do not accept your assertions is your problem, not mine. I owe you not one bit of anything.

You have yet to address the problems with the fact that there is no protocol for making sure the information true and correct.

You do not address the fact that all of the information and the computer assumptions, is not freely available for all to see for themselves. Not to mention the scientists themselves who falsify the data or are duped into believing it to be true.

Apparently, the information is not freely available because it is totally and completely fraudulent, why else hide it.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
617. JRRP
Quoting Neapolitan:

Ah, I see you again failed to respond to the question: what's causing the planet's "natural warming trend" to which you referred? And now a follow-up: what will cause the coming ice age you predict?

CO2 ??
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5239
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

As has been proven numerous times, it's not in the least an exaggeration of man's potential for us to say we are quite capable of causing widespread and irreparable harm to the planet. Denying we have the ability to do so? Now that's the illusion. Yes, it's true that a cometary impact or CME or some other catastrophe beyond our control could, in effect, hit Earth's reset button before we have the chance to do it ourselves. But it's awfully cynical--not to mention taking a huge and twisted leap of nihilistic logic--to say that since Mother Nature may elect to buck us all off the horse somewhere down the road, we shouldn't even bother doing the things we need to to hold on now. And I can imagine our descendants won't be happy to know that some of their ancestors felt that way.


You misread my point.

I did not say that humankind is incapable of destroying itself. I also did not say that there is no point in trying to repair or retract the potential causes of this possible destruction.

All I was trying to do was to remind others of the bigger picture. If you notice, buried in the middle of that commentary was a mention of the fact that no matter what is accomplished here or not accomplished by us, we are all going to have our reset buttons pressed at some point. And this will happen regardless whether it be the way it usually is, as individuals, or en masse.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Absolutely positively no way you can prove what you just stated regarding the cause of the earth going through a warming trend. None. At the most, you can skew the data, tailor the numbers, do whatever it takes to continue to push forward a bogus agenda: AGW

Give it 15 -20 years and you'll all be talking off the next ice age just like the folks in the wake of the 1970's, 80's winters. It's a hot topic right now, sure. But a trendy one, governed by falsifying data to one's likings to make wild and frivolous accusations that man is the cause of a multi-billion year old planet's rapid demise.

Keep following the $$

Ah, I see you again failed to respond to the question: what's causing the planet's "natural warming trend" to which you referred? And now a follow-up: what will cause the coming ice age you predict?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting caneswatch:
Didn't want to post until now, but the show was great last night. I would love to see one again.
Last night on the blog was awesome.For once people wern't takling about some global warming crap,and could actually have a very good conversation about almost anything weather related(or not in some cases).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting keywestdingding:
why is everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong. is this a weather blog or an ego battling blog? I say everyone is right to some degree and everyone is wrong to some degree. no one knows what's going to happen in 10 years or even one year. i know my little blog has no barring one anyone, just my two cents!!
Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas everyone.


Very true what you say and thanks for mentioning it.

But the problem here seems to be that too many on this blog enjoy that battle of the egos that you mentioned. Of course it will go nowhere and no one will have their mind changed but what the hey? I guess it must be invigorating for a lot of the participants.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HurricaneKatrina:
A global superstorm is likely. It will be ironic that global warming will freeze us to death. http://www.globalsuperstorm.bravehost.com/whatis.html


What is interesting is that if one is old enough, they can possibly remember a time not long ago at all when the fear program that was running was different.

In that earlier era, we were all programmed to believe that the source of our human-caused destruction was going to be a full-scale nuclear war. But oddly, even though there still remain some 50,000 or more nuclear warheads on this planet, no one much talks about that anymore and even fewer fear it. This is because that old fear program has been deleted and is now replaced with a new one.

Today, the new fear program that has been installed and is running involves the various dreaded scenarios which will supposedly unfold due to climate change.

One can only wonder at what the fear program will be for the next generation. Whatever it is, once it is installed and the present one involving climatic devastation has been deleted, surprisingly few will remember what all of the fears about climate change were all about.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLWaterFront:


I think something needs to be mentioned here.. again.

...in our most recent advancement to a technological civilization, we have developed an odd view of ourselves and one which tends to ascribe to us more power over our surroundings than we actually possess. This is, in effect, an illusion. Just as in earlier eras when we as a species had relatively little technological acumen, we are all ultimately helpless against nature.

Even if we somehow manage to live full life spans without ever encountering either natural or manmade disaster on either a broad or very limited scale, then we succumb to our own mortality at some point. And it is also inevitable that no matter how much technological expertise we shall eventually acquire as a civilization, at some point in time the forces of nature will slam us very hard and pare us back greatly in numbers. It is also possible that if we fail to develop the ability to leave this Earth and colonize other worlds soon enough, natural catastrophe could wipe us all out altogether.

My point here is that there simply is not much to be gained by worrying about that which we cannot control, nor is there much sense to exaggerating our own potential for controlling or altering our own environment, either for better or worse. Even if we are presently doing that it is not likely to be the source of our ultimate demise. Instead, the forces which are endemic to our cosmic realm will be the likely cause for that.

In the meantime, there is just not much sense in fretting too much about any of it.

As has been proven numerous times, it's not in the least an exaggeration of man's potential for us to say we are quite capable of causing widespread and irreparable harm to the planet. Denying we have the ability to do so? Now that's the illusion. Yes, it's true that a cometary impact or CME or some other catastrophe beyond our control could, in effect, hit Earth's reset button before we have the chance to do it ourselves. But it's awfully cynical--not to mention taking a huge and twisted leap of nihilistic logic--to say that since Mother Nature may elect to buck us all off the horse somewhere down the road, we shouldn't even bother doing the things we need to to hold on now. And I can imagine our descendants won't be happy to know that some of their ancestors felt that way.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Didn't want to post until now, but the show was great last night. I would love to see one again.
Member Since: October 8, 2008 Posts: 14 Comments: 4553
Quoting greentortuloni:
All the agencies are reporting that sea ice shrank in the last week. The data is from the Fairy Godmother of Denialist himself, Anthony Watts.


And it seems like just yesterday that someone mentioned "poisoning the well".

If you can't refute the evidence, trash the messenger...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
why is everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong. is this a weather blog or an ego battling blog? I say everyone is right to some degree and everyone is wrong to some degree. no one knows what's going to happen in 10 years or even one year. i know my little blog has no barring one anyone, just my two cents!!
Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas everyone.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Absolutely positively no way you can prove what you just stated regarding the cause of the earth going through a warming trend. None. At the most, you can skew the data, tailor the numbers, do whatever it takes to continue to push forward a bogus agenda: AGW

Give it 15 -20 years and you'll all be talking off the next ice age just like the folks in the wake of the 1970's, 80's winters. It's a hot topic right now, sure. But a trendy one, governed by falsifying data to one's likings to make wild and frivolous accusations that man is the cause of a multi-billion year old planet's rapid demise.

Keep following the $$
All the way to exxon and royal dutch hell
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Anyway, Ciao, my ride is here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Great pic, Skye. Thanks for sharing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A global superstorm is likely. It will be ironic that global warming will freeze us to death. http://www.globalsuperstorm.bravehost.com/whatis.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
601. Skyepony (Mod)
Recovered from the eclipse/solstice party. Here's the best pic I could get during totality..

click pic to make big
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37169
Quoting HurricaneKatrina:
A global superstorm would hit like on the Day After Tomorrow and the cold stratospheric air would freeze the northern hemisphere. The ice and snow would trigger a negative feedback making it permanent.

This time it wont be natural. Our foolish ways will have triggered an ice age almost exactly like on The Day After Tomorrow!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
599. JRRP

Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5239
Quoting Seastep:
As for speed of change, look up the Younger Dryas. Climate can change very rapidly. In a matter of months, not years or decades.

That's what I consider "rapid change" as opposed to changes measured in decades and centuries.

The older thinking from ice cores estimated that it took about a decade or so for the cooling and Greenland temp rose 10.0C in a single decade at the end of it. Now THAT is rapid warming.

Newer research suggests that it was only a few months, or one year at most, to plunge and 100-200 years to come out of it.

An entirely natural occurrence.
I just want to take a moment from my merry-go-round ride with Calusakat to state that, THIS is an example of supporting. HERE is something that can actually be addressed with critical thinking and proper analysis.

I feel it important to make this distinction, and to further that I am no AGW chicken little. I simply will not stand idle to the nonsense posts I've been mirroring via Cal.

There are a LOT of people working hard to address the rising temperatures, regardless of their own hypotheses on the triggering mechanisms. To state the whole field of research is a puddle of greedy lies is such an Enormous insult to all those trying to get to the bottom of it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


Fair enough. You don't want to lead. So it's either follow or get out of the way, uh, please.


Your point is badly misplaced, based on the context of my post.

Are you saying that I am merely a follower because I have pointed out that we are not immortal? If so, you must by implying that you are either the leader or amongst the leaders who are going to make us immortal and that because of my commentary, I am somehow "in the way" of this process.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
As for speed of change, look up the Younger Dryas. Climate can change very rapidly. In a matter of months, not years or decades.

That's what I consider "rapid change" as opposed to changes measured in decades and centuries.

The older thinking from ice cores estimated that it took about a decade or so for the cooling and Greenland temp rose 10.0C in a single decade at the end of it. Now THAT is rapid warming.

Newer research suggests that it was only a few months, or one year at most, to plunge and 100-200 years to come out of it.

An entirely natural occurrence.
A global superstorm would hit like on the Day After Tomorrow and the cold stratospheric air would freeze the northern hemisphere. The ice and snow would trigger a negative feedback making it permanent.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
As for speed of change, look up the Younger Dryas. Climate can change very rapidly. In a matter of months, not years or decades.

That's what I consider "rapid change" as opposed to changes measured in decades and centuries.

The older thinking from ice cores estimated that it took about a decade or so for the cooling and Greenland temp rose +10.0C in a single decade at the end of it. Now THAT is rapid warming.

Newer research suggests that it was only a few months, or one year at most, to plunge and 100-200 years to come out of it.

An entirely natural occurrence.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Sure. Warming temperatures as a result of a natural warming trend.

Uh-huh. And what is driving that warming trend? Things don't "just happen" in nature; every phenomenon or event that occurs is triggered by some other phenomenon or event. So what's the atmosphere's motivation for suddenly heating up? Now, don't say the sun's output is increasing; it's nearly at its 100-year minimal output, so that most definitely isn't it. And don't say the earth has moved closer to the sun, because it hasn't.

No, allow me to save everyone time searching some denial site or other in a mad dash for little bits and pieces of debunked "evidence", and I'll tell you what's driving the "warming trend": the greenhouse effect caused by the increasing amounts of CO2 and other GhGs being pumped into the atmosphere.

Nothing else fits.

Nothing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 588

Quoting greentortuloni:


What! I might be wrong! Never... grin. Ok, I didn't know about that graph at the bottom of the page and I can't comment without digesting it. I thought PIOMASS was satellite based, hence the '79 cutoff. My quick retort is that this doesn't eliminate the worry about the current trend to no ice in a few years - however, if I stuck by that deeply right now, it would make me one of them... the people who make theories to support their conclusions....





LOL...I was wrong once, and I'll probably be wrong again. Anyway, I believe the PIOMASS does incorporate satellite data, some field-determined thickness measurements (although few), and takes relevant climate cycles such as the AMO into account. PIOMASS does seem to verify pretty well with the IceSat measurements from 2003-2007, but I'm not sure that the model wasn't calibrated to this data after the fact. I believe there is significant uncertainty in volume estimates outside of the 2003-2007 period.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLWaterFront:


I think something needs to be mentioned here.. again.

We are living creatures who are fully imbedded within an unimaginably vast natural environment.

The commonly used names for this environment are the Universe, the Cosmos, sometimes even the "Multiverse." Whatever one calls it, you surely get the point and well understand the concept.

And as such, we are helpless against 99.9999% of the forces that could or are capable of causing us harm. In reality, we are little more than the equivalent of ants who are busily building and maintaining an ant hill, if one were to look at it in a macro-scale.

But what happens to ant hills when there is a major flood, or a high wind, a fire, earthquake and so on? Obviously, that ant colony is devastated, to say nothing of the individual ants themselves.

But in our most recent advancement to a technological civilization, we have developed an odd view of ourselves and one which tends to ascribe to us more power over our surroundings than we actually possess. This is, in effect, an illusion. Just as in earlier eras when we as a species had relatively little technological acumen, we are all ultimately helpless against nature.

Even if we somehow manage to live full life spans without ever encountering either natural or manmade disaster on either a broad or very limited scale, then we succumb to our own mortality at some point. And it is also inevitable that no matter how much technological expertise we shall eventually acquire as a civilization, at some point in time the forces of nature will slam us very hard and pare us back greatly in numbers. It is also possible that if we fail to develop the ability to leave this Earth and colonize other worlds soon enough, natural catastrophe could wipe us all out altogether.

My point here is that there simply is not much to be gained by worrying about that which we cannot control, nor is there much sense to exaggerating our own potential for controlling or altering our own environment, either for better or worse. Even if we are presently doing that it is not likely to be the source of our ultimate demise. Instead, the forces which are endemic to our cosmic realm will be the likely cause for that.

In the meantime, there is just not much sense in fretting too much about any of it.


Fair enough. You don't want to lead. So it's either follow or get out of the way, uh, please.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Not a bit.

It should. THe melting could shut off the North Atlantic Current, triggering a global superstorm.
http://www.globalsuperstorm.bravehost.com/whatis.html
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Calusakat, my current comments are designed to mirror yours. I cannot use truth, nor address the issues when doing so simply because you have not.

Your meager attempts to cite a lack in certain protocols, and calling that addressing the issue is pitiful. There is so much information out there to counter your claims, and there has been much debate between bloggers here who ACTUALLY DO THEIR HOMEWORK.

But for me to mirror your posts, I have to come up with my retorts completely off the cuff. I can't provide any evidence to the contrary because you will just call those talking points out of the AGW handbook, call me sheeple, and then claim that all those figures and counterpoints are falsified anyway.

So there it is... look at my posts and see yourself. I am using you as a model here. I simply cannot provide an iota of evidence primarily because you have not done so. As soon as you start providing evidence, I'll follow suit. If anyone here is looking for the information neither one of us are posting, they can simply ignore the two of us and view the quality dialogue already present on this, and several days worth of blogs.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


It doesn't worry you?


I think something needs to be mentioned here.. again.

We are living creatures who are fully imbedded within an unimaginably vast natural environment.

The commonly used names for this environment are the Universe, the Cosmos, sometimes even the "Multiverse." Whatever one calls it, you surely get the point and well understand the concept.

And as such, we are helpless against 99.9999% of the forces that could or are capable of causing us harm. In reality, we are little more than the equivalent of ants who are busily building and maintaining an ant hill, if one were to look at it in a macro-scale.

But what happens to ant hills when there is a major flood, or a high wind, a fire, earthquake and so on? Obviously, that ant colony is devastated, to say nothing of the individual ants themselves.

But in our most recent advancement to a technological civilization, we have developed an odd view of ourselves and one which tends to ascribe to us more power over our surroundings than we actually possess. This is, in effect, an illusion. Just as in earlier eras when we as a species had relatively little technological acumen, we are all ultimately helpless against nature.

Even if we somehow manage to live full life spans without ever encountering either natural or manmade disaster on either a broad or very limited scale, then we succumb to our own mortality at some point. And it is also inevitable that no matter how much technological expertise we shall eventually acquire as a civilization, at some point in time the forces of nature will slam us very hard and pare us back greatly in numbers. It is also possible that if we fail to develop the ability to leave this Earth and colonize other worlds soon enough, natural catastrophe could wipe us all out altogether.

My point here is that there simply is not much to be gained by worrying about that which we cannot control, nor is there much sense to exaggerating our own potential for controlling or altering our own environment, either for better or worse. Even if we are presently doing that it is not likely to be the source of our ultimate demise. Instead, the forces which are endemic to our cosmic realm will be the likely cause for that.

In the meantime, there is just not much sense in fretting too much about any of it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:


It is important to remember that we only have actual volume observations from 2003-2007 (courtesy of the previous IceSat satellite). The 70% loss figure you're thinking of likely comes from the estimates using the PIOMAS model. However, if you believe that this model is accurate, it is important to mention that when projected backward, it also shows quite low ice volumes for the 1940s and 1950s as well [See Top graph below].



This graph comes from the PIOMAS site here [Go to the bottom of the page].

This is not to say that the 70% is necessarily wrong, just that there is much more uncertainty dealing with volume measurements (due very limited ice thickness observations) than there is with ice area/extent.

* * *

№ 579 @ Seastep

Thanks.


What! I might be wrong! Never... grin. Ok, I didn't know about that graph at the bottom of the page and I can't comment without digesting it. I thought PIOMASS was satellite based, hence the '79 cutoff. My quick retort is that this doesn't eliminate the worry about the current trend to no ice in a few years - however, if I stuck by that deeply right now, it would make me one of them... the people who make theories to support their conclusions....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:




AGW is a money grabbing lie.




Prove this.
And by the way, you can make up whatever stories you want to convince people about your nature. I don't buy it as long as you continue not to buy that there are honest concerns about all of the data, and all of the evidence that supports the notion that man has an impact on the climate. I can be just as pigheaded as you, whether I'm right or wrong. I need no evidence to support my assertions as long as you place no evidence to support your assertions.

I assert that you lie about your concern for stewardship. I assert that you lie about interests in the Green economy. I assert that you have no foundation for the claim that climate scientists are just pulling the wool over our eyes to make big bucks.

One cannot reconcile your disgust of climate scientists with an interest in improving our relationship with the environment. The very solutions to the proposed problem that man impacts the climate are limiting CO2 emissions and cleaning up soot pollutants before they are released into the air. If you are truly green, you would be in favor of taking these measures.

Legislating and political discourses are completely out of the picture until implementation. Prior to implementing controls, is voicing the concern to limit these CO2 and soot emissions. But you do not favor the limiting of these because you believe there are no problems caused by them. You think the whole thing is a hoax.

Your life decisions about being Green are irrelevant when you talk about the motivations of scientist studying climate change being in it for the money and the money alone. That doesn't reconcile your twisted notions one bit. I think you are only in it for the money. You sought gas efficiency, and energy efficiency per your anecdotal claims. That just saved you your almighty dollar. It's only a coincidence that they were sound environmental decisions.

Environmental concerns being a motivator, you should be for limiting emissions. But you fear the economy will suffer, so you are against that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
586. JRRP
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5239
Quoting greentortuloni:


Yup. 70% of ice volume in the arctic gone in the last 30 years. What is your explanation for such a huge change in so short a time?


It is important to remember that we only have actual volume observations from 2003-2007 (courtesy of the previous IceSat satellite). The 70% loss figure you're thinking of likely comes from the estimates using the PIOMAS model. However, if you believe that this model is accurate, it is important to mention that when projected backward, it also shows quite low ice volumes for the 1940s and 1950s as well [See Top graph below].



This graph comes from the PIOMAS site here [Go to the bottom of the page].

This is not to say that the 70% is necessarily wrong, just that there is much more uncertainty dealing with volume measurements (due very limited ice thickness observations) than there is with ice area/extent.

* * *

№ 579 @ Seastep

Thanks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Not a bit.


Ok, you have the right to decide for yourself.

However, the evidence is that the polar ice is on a trend to disappear during the summer within a few years. From what I understand: You believe, based on no verifiable data, just a gut feeling that this is of no consequence, that it is natural and therefore ok.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Sure. Warming temperatures as a result of a natural warming trend.


It doesn't worry you?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
Concerning the record high/low ratio:

The ratio of record highs to lows really only gives us an idea of where the global temperature stand in relation to the average of the entire record (ca.1850-2010). As long as temperatures are at current levels—even if they were to remain relatively constant for the next twenty years—there will still be more record highs than lows overall. This should still be true even if temperatures were to decrease, as long as they remain above the ca.1850-2010 average.


Well said. Was going to post something similar, but you said it much better.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Crack open the record books for the 11th century and tell me that we didn't GAIN that same % of ice back. Do we even have those in the archive? At least not that I am aware. Who's to say this ice won't regenerate in years to come? To immediately blame man for a natural trend of the multi-billion year old globe is rather silly. I hope you weren't one of the many who immediately concluded we were heading into the next ice age during the harsh winters years ago? That was almost as silly as this global warming stuff.


Nope, wasn't part of any other movement except a general patriotic and hedonistic trend in my life.

But even if it existed in the 11th century, which as you well know cannot be validated either way, that doesn't explain why the ice is melting now and so fast.

Do you have an explanation?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
no, follow all the posts. it is an utter disregard for the scientific community that comes from the blogger.

there is a tinge of that in your own post, but what surprises me is that you speak of a harmonious coexistence, while Calusakat views the entire 'Green' industry as a fraud. you and i are certainly far more aligned if you are honest about your statements. i seek stewardship above all else, and regardless of the outcomes of the AGW debate, there is so much to be improved upon by the way we coexist. i can assure you by all i've read of Calusakat's posts that coexistence is not on the agenda.



Poor Minniemike.

Wouldn't know the truth if it up and bit him.

Look back on my posting history and you will see that I am a dyed in the wool GREENIE since 1970.

In 1973, I drove my 1972 240 Z from Orlando to Atlanta and got 27.2 miles per gallon. I drove my 2000 Villager SUV from Naples to Paris Island, for my son's graduation from Marine Boot Camp and was surprised when it got 28.7 per gallon.

My last gas guzzler was a 1958 Dodge that had a disappointing 10 miles to the gallon consumption which disappointed me at the time because it didn't have the 8 miles to the gallon consumption of all my other car buff friends.

My turning point was back in about 1968 when my aunt from Chicago sent me some of her old 45 RPM records. I opened the box and started to clean the first record and the cloth was pitch black from the first side. Coal dust from the power plants in Chicago was deemed the culprit.

That was so disturbing that I totally changed how I thought about pollution and things like that.

Today and since 2003, all of my incandescent bulbs were changed to CFL in my home and business. Our family vehicles get at least 25-28 miles to the gallon. Two of them get 33 miles per gallon.

We do not use poisons to control our yards. We do not use artificial fertilizers instead we use compost. We were recycling long before recycling was an accepted practice

Errands are scheduled to make the most for the trip into town.

Green is good. I am a GREENIE.

I am not a AGW Lemming.

Pollution is bad.

Photovoltaic energy is wonderful. Why? Because it is infinite.

Wind energy works where the wind is always blowing.

AGW is a money grabbing lie.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting moonlightcowboy:
Merry Christmas, all, and have a healthy and prosperous 2011! :)
merry christmas MLC to you and yours and all the best for the new year ahead
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 626 - 576

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.