[HN Gopher] 2K earthquakes in 1 day off Canada coast
___________________________________________________________________
2K earthquakes in 1 day off Canada coast
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 119 points
Date : 2024-03-22 16:40 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.livescience.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.livescience.com)
| __xor_eax_eax wrote:
| Possible that this could explain some of the recent unexplained
| ocean warming?
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| The ocean warming is well explained. It's the result of
| removing sulfur compounds from ship fuels. This change reduces
| could cover and increases the flux of solar radiation into the
| ocean causing heating. This is well agreed upon by scientists
| and not controversial. Cloud cover reduction is measurable and
| clearly visible in pre and post 2021 satellite imagery where
| shipping lanes have cloud trails before the change and do not
| have cloud trails now.
| organsnyder wrote:
| How did the ocean stay cool before steamships were invented?
| Kuinox wrote:
| There was less CO2 in the air.
| eptcyka wrote:
| There was less CO2 in the atmosphere, which increased its
| capacity to cool off the oceans.
| energybored11 wrote:
| They did not.
| samatman wrote:
| We don't know that they did. It takes satellites to get a
| representative measure of ocean temperatures worldwide.
| There's some noisy data from ships dipping mercury
| thermometers into the oceans, but this was hardly a
| widespread practice.
| __xor_eax_eax wrote:
| I've heard that theory is pretty contentious. I'm certainly
| not an expert though
| mecsred wrote:
| Actual information for those interested.
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/missions/aqua/nasa-study-finds-
| evidence...
| uoaei wrote:
| So the change in regulation happened in 2020. How then
| does this hypothesis explain changes in ocean temperature
| before then? What is the relative magnitude of the
| correction vs CO2-only-based models?
| mecsred wrote:
| It doesn't. This model isn't an alternative to CO2 based
| atmospheric warming models, it just explains a very
| recent trend in ocean temperature. This branched off a
| discussion about _recent_ temperature trends. Everyone
| asking questions about general long term trends either
| aren 't reading or are starting a different conversation.
| uoaei wrote:
| GP explicitly referenced this phenomenon in an
| unqualified manner when addressing ocean warming. If they
| wanted to be understood the first time, they should have
| clarified the context.
| btilly wrote:
| If you check, the GP said "the recent unexplained
| warming". That's sufficient qualification to say that
| this is the explanation.
|
| Of course the sudden recent spike is on top of an
| existing warming trend. And that trends is due to long-
| term trends from CO2.
| JoshTko wrote:
| I don't understand how china show nothing for the chart
| "% of cloud clouds from ships.
| evandale wrote:
| Probably no data. China will not make data publically
| available if it makes them look bad.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| How would they stop data from being collected by NASA
| satellites?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Presumably for the same reason the Gulf of Mexico doesn't
| show up despite having six of the ten largest US ports.
| I'd guess they only tracked the open ocean, but whether
| that's a design decision or those types of clouds don't
| form over certain bodies of water I couldn't say.
|
| Either way, much of the traffic in the Pacific comes from
| or ends at China, I don't think anyone is denying that.
| Scarblac wrote:
| Why would the extraordinary heating effect start in March
| 2023 then?
| chucksta wrote:
| North America is done going through most of its winter
| phase
| groby_b wrote:
| Ah yes, global ocean temperatures are famously tied to
| winter on a single continent.
| btilly wrote:
| Ship tracks are concentrated to an from that continent.
| So the effect of the clearing of those tracks was
| concentrated on those oceans. The fact that they could
| warm more easily than expected, only mattered when they
| started to warm. And then a sufficient area warmed
| sufficiently quickly to impact global ocean temperatures.
|
| That's the problem with snarky dismissals like the one
| that you just gave. Often they are missing some important
| point that will move the think you are ridiculing from
| ridiculous, to surprisingly reasonable. And if that
| happens, you're the one who looks bad.
|
| As an alternative, I would suggest curiosity questions.
| If there is no good answer, your point is still made. And
| if there is one, you will still look good. The only
| disadvantage is that you don't get the pleasure of that
| "gotcha" moment.
| tejohnso wrote:
| Everything I've seen indicates scientists are completely
| flabbergasted with this six sigma warming. For example
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/14/record-
| war...
|
| Your theory is mentioned in the article and is far from a
| valid, complete explanation.
| organsnyder wrote:
| The warming isn't localized--or even more prevalent--in that
| area.
| __xor_eax_eax wrote:
| Hmm. Yea, you would expect to see localized warming I imagine
| sourthyme wrote:
| I thought this was explained by excess greenhouse gases.
|
| Ref: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-
| climate/....
| __xor_eax_eax wrote:
| Over the long-term, yes. But the very recent, very acute 1.5
| degree warming is unexpected against pure CO2-based models.
| I've read a bunch of theories (reduction in certain type of
| emissions from ships being a prevalent one), but nothing
| conclusive
| tejohnso wrote:
| We are increasing the energy imbalance in the earth system. A
| large part of that energy is absorbed by oceans. And at the
| same time our temperature buffers like the arctic sea ice, are
| disappearing.
|
| I think we're seeing the same thing that is always seen when a
| complex system is sufficiently perturbed. Loss of stability,
| chaotic behaviour, and eventual collapse.
| ramenmeal wrote:
| disclaimer: I know nothing about this stuff.
|
| > This area is separate from the subduction zone
|
| 150 miles off the coast doesn't sound that far from the
| subduction zone. Seems hard to believe there wouldn't be some
| tectonic relationship between the areas.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| The phrasing is a little unfortunate, but this area sits on the
| Juan de Fuca Ridge, which is in one sense the "origin" of the
| Juan de Fuca plate. If you imagine the overall Pacific Plate
| and the North American plate, in the area off the coast of
| Vancouver/Oregon/Washington there's an other mini plate wedges
| between them called the Juan de Fuca Plate. In this area, it's
| the Juan de Fuca plate (not the Pacific plate) which is
| subducting under the North American plate.
|
| The boundary between the Juan de Fuca plate and the Pacific
| plate is this Juan de Fuca Ridge. This ridge is a site of sea
| floor spreading - it's not subducting.
|
| So there is a tectontic relationship between the two sites -
| sea floor spreading at the ridge is one of the factors that
| drives the subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate. But at the
| same time, any activity happening at the ridge is not "caused"
| by the subduction.
| layer8 wrote:
| So that sounds like "the ocean floor is ripping apart" is a
| normal and expected phenomenon in that area.
| jfoutz wrote:
| Trying to get a sense of what's going on - and you seem
| knowledgeable. Is this thumbnail a reasonable approximation?
|
| To my completely uninformed mind, it seems like you're
| saying, there's no huge plate to plate buildup of pressure,
| it's more like the ocean floor is spreading out, kinda like
| that picture?
|
| https://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/images/intro/wallA.
| ..
| pfdietz wrote:
| > But at the same time, any activity happening at the ridge
| is not "caused" by the subduction.
|
| Is that true? One of the leading theories of the cause of
| plate motion is "slab pull", which comes from subduction
| zones.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The point is that subduction zones are convergent plate
| boundaries (two plates are coming together, and one dives under
| the other) while rifting zones like this are divergent plate
| boundaries (two plates are spreading apart). Distance doesn't
| matter, it's the direction of travel.
| z2h-a6n wrote:
| disclaimer: I'm not an expert, but I've been watching some
| geology lectures focused on the pacific northwest [1] for fun
| recently.
|
| This is on the Jaun de Fuca Ridge, on the other edge of the
| Juan de Fuca plate [2] from the Cascadia subduction zone, so
| it's related in the sense that it's the same tectonic plate,
| and the plate is very small (as far as I understand, it's a
| remnant of a plate that has been subducting under North America
| for a very long time). It is not (in my very-non-expert
| opinion) necessarily related in a direct sense to what is
| happening in the subduction zone.
|
| [1]: e.g:
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcKUIuDhdLl92gfymRabw...
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Plate
| killthebuddha wrote:
| Wow, that playlist is absolute gold. These kinds of
| instructional, high-quality, long-form lecture series are IMO
| maybe the best thing on the internet. The kind of thing when
| I encounter it makes me take a step back and really
| appreciate the fundamental beauty and utility of the
| internet.
|
| A few other examples: - https://www.youtube.c
| om/playlist?list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM - h
| ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncd6q9uIEdw&list=PLND1JCRq8Vuh
| 3f0P5qjrSdb5eC1ZfZwWJ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
| =ycJEoqmQvwg&list=PLbN57C5Zdl6j_qJA-pARJnKsmROzPnO9V -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps8jOj7diA0&list=PL9D558D49CA
| 734A02
|
| Sometimes I wish there was a frontend for YouTube that only
| has these kind of long-form lecture series, but I've never
| found one. I think part of the reason why is that essential
| "quality" is somewhat ineffable.
| gnabgib wrote:
| "Scientists say no cause for concern over imminent rupture; up to
| 200 small earthquakes per hour recorded"[0]
|
| [0]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-
| columbia/earthquakes-...
| canadiantim wrote:
| better lots of small ones
| bamboozled wrote:
| Lots of small ones before serious quakes in Japan. See
| Earthquake swarms before the recent 7+ in Noto.
|
| Stay prepared.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| The article states:
|
| >> This spot hosts a number of hydrothermal vents and sits
| on the Juan de Fuca Ridge, where the ocean floor is
| spreading apart. This area is separate from the subduction
| zone -- a region where one tectonic plate is sinking into
| the mantle underneath another plate -- closer to the coast
| that can create large, destructive earthquakes, said Zoe
| Krauss, a doctoral candidate in marine geophysics in the
| University of Washington.
| bamboozled wrote:
| A big one wasn't likely or possible in Noto apparently.
| It happened and there was a flurry of quakes beforehand.
|
| Not sure if you've experienced something like that but
| it's extreme. If you live in that area I'd not stack
| anything too high or get under and propped up cars for a
| few weeks.
| int_19h wrote:
| I do live in western WA, where this is an ongoing
| concern, but it should be noted that a flurry of small
| quakes is pretty regular activity here, as anyone who
| regularly monitors the USGS earthquake map can attest.
| DenverSWE wrote:
| This also provided a lot of context but was pretty far down
| into the article so I'll share here:
|
| > This happens on an approximately 20-year cycle, she said,
| which puts the area right on schedule: The last time it was
| this seismically shaky was in 2005.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Maybe it is the Kaiju trying to break free!!
| hollander wrote:
| Monster of Lochness relocated
| layer8 wrote:
| Now I'm picturing a Kaiju in https://youtube.com/watch?v=f4Mc-
| NYPHaQ.
| downrightmike wrote:
| In Pacific Rim, 2024 was when that movie took place
| brink wrote:
| Someone get Boston Dynamics on the line, we have work to do.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Hollywood has been warning us of Kaiju attacks for decades.
| It's our own fault at this point for being so unprepared.
| But hey, that's a real nice adtech system you've built
| instead. Maybe they can figure out how to use their
| invasive tracking on the Kaiju as an early warning system.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| Our AI startup has an LLM trained on the hollywood
| scripts. We are using it to determine where and when will
| be the next moster attack.
|
| We may still get a decent script out of these tokens...
| edward28 wrote:
| It may have been overfitted to the US though.
| WestCoastJustin wrote:
| Map here https://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/index-
| en.php?tpl_r...
| nazca wrote:
| Thanks. A pet peeve of mine is when a geography-focused article
| doesn't include a map.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| Also when earthquake articles make no mention of the
| magnitude of them. 2000 magnitude 1 quakes is way, way
| different than just a few magnitude 5 quakes.
| dkasper wrote:
| Quite literally a magnitude 5 is 10000x the strength of mag
| 1!
| araes wrote:
| This setting at Earthquakes USGS also shows the quake group
| being discussed.
|
| https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=31.27319...
|
| Major collection from central Alaska near Denali National Park
| down the peninsula and fairly large group heading up
| California.
| bovermyer wrote:
| Dramatic headline, for what is basically a "hey neat, we can
| study this process" article.
| nativeit wrote:
| I personally would consider the reality of what is taking place
| to be really quite dramatic, even if it isn't any threat to
| humans.
| pixl97 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KSwIcrKEOs
|
| Site of a possible volcanic eruption in the future.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| Pet peeve.
|
| I dont know where the exact line actually is, but please stop
| calling any earth movement below a 5 an "earthquake"
|
| We have an english word for it.
|
| Its a tremor. Lets use it.
|
| An earthquake implies mass destruction.
|
| A tremor at most is a few dogs barking, and a few people getting
| spooked
| epcoa wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Terminology
| bbarnett wrote:
| Using the strongest word, when a more appropriate one will
| do, technically correct or not, is wrong.
|
| Or will you be happy when you read a story about $x losing
| exabytes of data, then you read the article, and it's
| 0.000000012 exabytes?
| kibwen wrote:
| You can't mention the Juan de Fuca ridge without mentioning the
| claustrophobic 90s sci-fi psychological thriller "Starfish" by
| Peter Watts, which he graciously hosts in its full text for free
| on his delightfully Geocities-esque website:
| https://rifters.com/real/STARFISH.htm
| atlas_hugged wrote:
| I saw some negative numbers which surprised me, so I looked it
| up.
|
| Found this for anyone else who is also curious:
|
| https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-can-earthquake-have-negative-m...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-22 23:01 UTC)