Significant earthquake rattles North Jersey and NYC region

Surprise-surprise. What do you know, that's a rare event for the East Coast of America.
Stay safe everyone.

 

Climate change? I've often wondered about that. Everything seems to be connected.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/clim...ect-earthquakes-or-are-the-connections-shaky/

“We’ve seen that relatively small stress changes due to climate-like forcings can effect microseismicity,” he said. “A lot of small fractures in Earth’s crust are unstable. We see also that tides can cause faint Earth tremors known as microseisms. But the real problem is taking our knowledge of microseismicity and scaling it up to apply it to a big quake, or a quake of any size that people could feel, really.” Climate-related stress changes might or might not promote an earthquake to occur, but we have no way of knowing by how much.

 

Next they will scare us with forest fires are worse due to global warming and won't tell us that forest fires burned unnoticed for thousands of years because people didn't build there.

 

Here in the Mountain West, we know about wildfires. They are part of the everyday lives of ALL who live here. And yes, we are dealing with more intense wildfires than ever. Unlike the US East Coast and the Southeast, where temperatures haven't risen as much. Climate change has extended the wildfire season to be longer; and the hotter, dryer temperatures have made the wildfires more intense and harder to extinguish.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

• Some parts of the United States have experienced more warming than others (see Figure 3). The North, the West, and Alaska have seen temperatures increase the most, while some parts of the Southeast have experienced little change.

 

crazy, hard to believe she is a member of Congress...

"Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks earthquake and eclipse are a warning from God"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...nd-eclipse-are-a-warning-from-god/ar-BB1l97kI

 

I'm told Communism will rip a quake as well...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...l?cvid=548488eb89cd472e8c582eac810497be&ei=22

 

An article from the EPA? Really? Do you know where they get those temperatures from? The city!

 

I would urge you to consult the NOAA website, where they talk about the methods used for "Global Average Temperatures". Your statement is inaccurate.

 

Apparently it’s whatever one fears the most that triggers earthquakes. A vengeful god or a warming planet.

When marketing ideas with fear is the order of the day, best beware of the salesperson.

 

As mentioned with the NASA link earlier, there is no way to know definitively, but with all the other crazy Climate-Change-Induced events, there is probably a connection.

 

Yeh. The 1783 much more powerful earthquake in the same vicinity was probably connected to crazy AGW as well.

Do you think the above average sea level rise around New York and New Jersey could play a part in instability? Any idea why sea levels would be rising faster in these areas?

Or are we just going to act like ancient civilizations that believed without evidence thunder was from the gods?

 

Are you telling me that you don’t believe that God is punishing us for destroying His planet?

 

Actually I was telling you there is more evidence for anthropogenic activities NOT related to CO2 driven AGW causing earthquakes than evidence for AGW itself causing earthquakes.

Underground CO2 storage is documented to cause earthquakes. Geothermal power production and hydroelectric is documented to cause earthquakes. Depletion of aquifers is known to cause earthquakes.

But you only know about a thing that isn’t even documented to be true and only care about that thing.

Why would I believe a god is punishing us? Is increased longevity, less deaths from natural disasters, less deaths from suboptimal temperatures, and increased food production potential “punishment”? Not to me….

 

I think climate change has only made wildfires more intense because it has made the forest thicker.
Rising average temperatures in the middle of the US mean more rainfall, but also drier summers due to warmer temperatures and faster evaporation.

If you want to escape that effect, simply move to a slightly lower precipitation area where the forest vegetation is more sparse, and move to a cooler area a little bit further north. Simply move in a direction that gets less total rain and is cooler (often in a more northwest direction) and the forest conditions will be the same as the forest conditions were in that spot 20 years ago.

Any dense well-watered forest that has hot dry summers is going to have wildfire problems. That's not going to get "worse", it's just going to move current climate zones northward.

(That is if we are just talking about rising average temperature, equal increase in both winter and summer, and assuming any precipitation increase during the rest of the year is also equal in summer)

Claiming climate change increases the risk of wildfire seems to be about as meaningful as claiming that moving to a thicker forest with bigger trees, and moving further south, increases the wildfire risk.

If you disagree with that, use logic to debate it.

 

And theres the sun...

"We found clear correlation between proton density and the occurrence of large earthquakes (M > 5.6), with a time shift of one day. The significance of such correlation is very high, with probability to be wrong lower than 10–5. The correlation increases with the magnitude threshold of the seismic catalogue. A tentative model explaining such a correlation is also proposed, in terms of the reverse piezoelectric effect induced by the applied electric field related to the proton density. This result opens new perspectives in seismological interpretations, as well as in earthquake forecast."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3

 

Well, they say a butterfly can cause a hurricane.

 

Well, one silver lining of AGW is the acceleration of green energy - which is usually energy that is less polluting in other ways (if you excuse a little fine print).

 

Seems to me global warming will be an overall benefit, after we adapt. Currently there are large portions of the planet that simply are not habitable due to being frozen. Greenland, northern North America, northern Asia and Antarctica. Current models suggest Antartica could begin thawing in around 200 years. Presumably the other regions well before that. Its known that in the distant past even Antarctica was forested. It stands to reason it could be arable again. Of course this would make currently warm parts of the planet even warmer and possibly more arid, but we can adapt to that with irrigation. Plants (crops) tend to love heat, so long as they have enough water, and we can adapt to heat far easier than we can adapt to frozen. And plants need less water when they have more CO2...

The real question is: is it worthwhile to dump all our resources into preserving the coastlines on a partially frozen planet, where slight climate change threatens the bulk of human habitation and large portions of our planet remain unusable, or would it be better to allow (or help) the planet to fully thaw, stabilizing the coastlines at their minimum but also freeing up the rest of the land that's currently frozen to instead be habitable and usable by humanity?

Seems to me the efforts to combat global warming are relatively shortsided, at least in the context of the next few centuries. If we really wanted to make a better future for humans, we'd be preparing to irrigate deserts rather than trying to preserve permafrost and glaciers.

 

Benefit? You like refugees around the world. Social unrest? Unprecedented natural disasters?

 

Of course not. Fortunately we have plenty of time to prepare and prevent all that. If we want too...

 

What - start tearing down cities and shift populations?

 

Nothing has to be torn down. We're talking decades to centuries here. People can move on their own like they always have. And they will once insurance companies and banks stop coverage of at-risk properties in danger of flooding, same as they've always done. Focus on cheaper energy instead of carbon reduction and populations will relocate themselves. 3/4 of the planet is water. We dont and never will have a water problem. What we have is a salt problem. And we already know how to solve that with energy.