Pages

Monday, March 14, 2011

Japan Earthquake: part of an increasing trend?

This is an update of the blog I posted last year

Are earthquakes becoming more frequent? What are the long term trends?

 I find an interesting page here, with this graph showing a pretty convincing increase since the 1980's.


But this increase could be due to better instrumentation - wider distribution of more sensitive seismographs. However, this explanation does not accord with the recent downward trend.

The writer also collects all  earthquakes >6.9 magnitude, which would be recorded by less widespread, less sensitive instruments. 




Again, a trend is apparent:
 
  DATES FROM & TO      PERIOD            NO. EARTHQUAKES (Mag. > 6.99) 
  ---------------------------         -----------             ------------------------------
 1863 to 1900 incl            38 yrs                   12
 1901 to 1938 incl            38 yrs                   53                                                                   Reference list 1901 to 1938
 1939 to 1976 incl            38 yrs                   71                                                                   Reference list 1939 to 1976
 1977 to 2014 incl *          38 yrs                 144 (to Sept. 2009) predict >180 in total. 
 
So here we have evidence that the earthquake frequency is rising.

I decided to do my own plot, using data from here , choosing earthquakes >7.0 magnitude between 1900 and 2011.

Again there is a convincing upward trend.

But these were only magnitude 7.0.  Maybe the early seismographs weren't picking them up. (There must be a time when instruments could pick up evidence of large earthquakes occurring anywhere in the world).

So I went to the ANSS data catalogue here and searched for earthquakes >8.0 from 1900 - 2011.
To minimise data manipulation, I just calculated the number of years between these quakes. The greater the number of years, the fewer quakes. When the value hits the zero, there are more than one quakes that year. So the graph is the inverse of the earthquake rate.

Here's the picture:

  

The timeline runs from 1900-2011 (sorry, I'm not very good with Excel, no education)

We are very clearly getting more frequent earthquake recordings in the last few decades.


 
However, we find the opposite view here on the US Geological Survey. They say, "Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease "in recent years".

By "This century", they mean the 21st century. Not a very large dataset. This reminds us of the methods used by climate change deniers, who try to use a few years' data to contradict much longer data series.

The USGS seems at pains to reassure people that earthquakes are not increasing.  They quote several factors that boost the perception, but do not do what they are supposed to do - look at the data, clean it up, and address the core question of whether earthquakes are increasing.

Unless and until someone comes up with some hard data to smooth out the graphs presented here, I will nurture the strong suspicion that earthquakes are increasing.

Why should this be?

The match between earthquake activity and global temperatures is interesting - right down to the recent easing up of both temperature and earthquakes.



Don't forget that the earth has a hot core, and this heat has to escape through the surface.
If the surface is warmer, the heat escape will be diminished.
Hotter rocks expand more, which would mean more seismic activity.

The claim that global warming is causing increasing earthquake activity is a reasonable hypothesis for seismologists and earth scientists to test.

The New Scientist examines whether large earthquakes come in clusters. 
 "What is clear is that for the 6.2 years since 2004, there have been more great earthquakes around the world than in any 6.2-year period throughout the 110-year history of seismic recordings," says Thorne Lay at the University of California."


More here:

Volcanoes
If earthquakes are increasing, what are volcanoes up to?

Here is a page on volcano activity trends. It shows an increase over 200 years, but puts it down to better reporting. However it is generally agreed that if global warming causes glaciers and icecaps to melt, the "unloading" (reduced pressure on earth's mantle) will cause an increase in volcanism. Which will help to reduce global warming, by reflecting more sunlight back into space.

It is argued by Prof Ben  McGuire of UCL that unloading of land-based ice due to global warming could affect the earth's crust, triggering earthquakes and volcanoes.

[Update 22.12.12] Confirmation from long term GEOMAR study, who find positive correlation between rapid warming, ice melt, and increased volcanic activity.

So there is evidence that both earthquakes and volcanoes are increasingly common, and there are plausible mechanisms to relate them to observed global warming. The relationship at the moment is speculative, and it will take many years for scientists to come to a consensus on the question. In the meantime we should set about decarbonising the world economy.

14 comments:

  1. No 6.3:13 pm

    Doc,

    There is no increasing trend of earthquakes. Seismic activity is reassuringly normal.

    The US Geological Survey archive of recorded earthquakes shows no change in the number of major earthquakes and no correlation between the number of strong earthquakes and global warming (using several measures).

    You can even sum the energy released by medium and large earthquakes since 1990 and although it initially seems that there's a slight trend, by removing the Chilean earthquake of 2010 and the Indonesian earthquake of 2004, there is no noticeable trend.

    So, the number and energy of earthquakes has been essentially constant over the past 20 years (and much longer!)

    There are plenty of geology sites/institutions well practised at debunking this stuff - this one is very good and accessible: http://geology.rockbandit.net/2010/03/01/has-there-been-an-increase-in-earthquake-activity/

    The USGS also has a page to answer this:
    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=110

    ReplyDelete
  2. No. 63:41 pm

    sorry for the impersonal reply but I wrote a lengthy post that I lost, being a bit thick today. I did distil the stuff below into a more friendly format but hey ho.

    this covers it though:

    http://daveschumaker.net/have-there-really-been-more-earthquakes-than-average/

    "Statistically speaking, you would expect to find 95% of all results falling within two standard deviations of your average. Simply put, there is absolutely nothing strange happening."

    http://blog.professorastronomy.com/2010/04/earthquakes-volcanoes-global-warming.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is odd. I have 2 email comments which have not appeared here. So in I paste them:

    No 6. has left a new comment on your post "Japan Earthquake: part of an increasing trend?":

    Doc,

    There is no increasing trend of earthquakes. Seismic activity is reassuringly normal.

    The US Geological Survey archive of recorded earthquakes shows no change in the number of major earthquakes and no correlation between the number of strong earthquakes and global warming (using several measures).

    You can even sum the energy released by medium and large earthquakes since 1990 and although it initially seems that there's a slight trend, by removing the Chilean earthquake of 2010 and the Indonesian earthquake of 2004, there is no noticeable trend.

    So, the number and energy of earthquakes has been essentially constant over the past 20 years (and much longer!)

    There are plenty of geology sites/institutions well practised at debunking this stuff - this one is very good and accessible: http://geology.rockbandit.net/2010/03/01/has-there-been-an-increase-in-earthquake-activity/

    The USGS also has a page to answer this:
    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=110

    ---


    sorry for the impersonal reply but I wrote a lengthy post that I lost, being a bit thick today. I did distil the stuff below into a more friendly format but hey ho.

    this covers it though:

    http://daveschumaker.net/have-there-really-been-more-earthquakes-than-average/

    "Statistically speaking, you would expect to find 95% of all results falling within two standard deviations of your average. Simply put, there is absolutely nothing strange happening."

    http://blog.professorastronomy.com/2010/04/earthquakes-volcanoes-global-warming.html
    ---

    RL: No 6, thanks. I will read and get back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. First response: Now why would you want to remove Chile 2010 and Indonesia 2004?

    ReplyDelete
  5. OK.

    The Rockbandit link only looks at 1990-2010, and basically says that 2010 was average for the period.

    I'm looking at long term trends. What I do not know is how many earthquakes mag 8+ would have been missed by earlier instrumentation. That's the key q.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Prof astronomy link is interesting. His plot of total energy shows a clear trend 1900-2010. However, inclusion of small earthquakes makes it vulnerable to observation bias.

    There's even still a trend after he arbitrarily removed 2 bits of data.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No. 62:14 pm

    Surely you realise why you 'removing' the two earthquakes is 'important'? Think of what climate change deniers do with short sets of data...

    I feel that you're looking at this on the wrong timescale. You will have a very hard time finding a handful of geologists that see any merit at all in the theory, similar to finding climatologists who argue against AGW.

    I'm lumping this with your 9-11 conspiracy stuff. But look on the brightside, I pretty much agree with everything else you write!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi No 6

    No, I still cannot see any validity in removing the 2 bits of data.

    I'm using the 1900-2010 timescale, which is as much as we can obtain, and that is problematic.

    Are you a seismologist? If so, do you know whether 8+ could be registered by early instruments? IN other words, could there have been earlier quakes that escaped detection?

    A priori, we should expect seismic effects from thermal expansion of plates and magma. After all, they factor in thermal expansion of water in sea level rise.

    You're very kind to agree with pretty much everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  9. At first glance, your post seems incredible.

    But look what New Scientist had to say today:

    The megaquake connection: Are huge earthquakes linked?

    Rest assured, you're not the only one asking these questions.

    If you want to go totally apocalyptic, have a read of Jeffrey Goodman's "The Earthquake Generation" and John White's "Pole Shift".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Phil.

    I've put your link into the main post.

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/rev-graham-and-the-signs-of-armageddon/ also assesses the earthquake claim and says not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. p.s., can you link that "this century" line from the USGS? I can't find it and am wondering if it was quoted from something written before the turn of the century.

    site:usgs.gov +earthquake +"this century" - did not match any documents.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks Hank and thanks for the spork link.

    I'll have a look at the link, but I suspect it is a terminal situation.

    I just want to make it clear to all that I'm not trying to "prove" anything here. Just fiddling around.

    Not trying to start a geological contrarian movement. Although, come to think of it, geologists do tend to lean towards climate scepticism. Based on an impression.

    Also geologists were v slow to wake up to Alfred Wegener's revolution.

    Anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hank lives here, everybody: http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html

    ReplyDelete