Slashdot Mirror


Upsurge in Big Earthquakes Predicted for 2018 (theguardian.com)

hcs_$reboot writes: "Scientists say the number of severe quakes is likely to rise strongly next year because of a periodic slowing of the Earth's rotation," reports the Guardian. "They believe variations in the speed of Earth's rotation could trigger intense seismic activity, particularly in heavily populated tropical regions. Although such fluctuations in rotation are small -- changing the length of the day by a millisecond -- they could still be implicated in the release of vast amounts of underground energy, it is argued."

The theory goes that the slowdown creates a shift in the shape of the Earth's solid iron and nickel "inner core" which, in turn, impacts the liquid outer core on which the tectonic plates that form the Earth's crust rest. The impact is greater on the tectonic plates near some of the Earth's most populous regions along the Equator, home to about a billion people. Scientists from the University of Colorado looked at all earthquakes registering 7 and up on the Richter scale since the turn of the 20th century. In this timeframe, the researchers discovered five periods of significantly greater seismic activity.

The seismic activity follows a five-year period of slowing in the earth's rotatio, and "This link is particularly important because Earth's rotation began one of its periodic slowdowns more than four years ago," according to the article.

"The Earth is offering us a five-year heads-up on future earthquakes," says one of the researchers, adding "The inference is clear. Next year we should see a significant increase in numbers of severe earthquakes."

88 comments

  1. Uhmm.... since when do.... by mark-t · · Score: 1, Interesting

    .... we start claiming we can predict earthquakes like we claim to be able to predict the weather or the climate?

    1. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since that study, I'd wager.

    2. Re:Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're not predicting specific earthquakes, they're just pointing out that, based on what appears to be a cycle, we'll probably see more of them next year that we have each of the past few years.

    3. Re:Uhmm.... since when do.... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope. Please read TFS for once (which has been nicely edited compared to my initial version!)

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      More to the point, since when in the fuck did we start predicting "periodic slowdowns in the Earth's rotation??" I smell unsubstantiated confusion, Guardian-style...

    5. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since a long time ago, Jr.

      Since a long time ago.

    6. Re:Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, they still failed to catch an obvious typo.

      The seismic activity follows a five-year period of slowing in the earth's rotatio, and "This link is particularly important because Earth's rotation began one of its periodic slowdowns more than four years ago," according to the article.

      Alas, poor Rotatio, I knew him well.

    7. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      More to the point, since when in the fuck did we start predicting "periodic slowdowns in the Earth's rotation??" I smell unsubstantiated confusion, Guardian-style...

      The earth's rotation has been slowing steadily all the time. Would that not mean a steady increase in quake activity?

    8. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      I'm going to guess that it is due to mag. North moving "a fair bit" right now. And while I'm guessing, I am going to guess that something _slowing down_ would be much less likely to "shake, rattle and roll" than something speeding up.

      --
      I come here for the love
    9. Re:Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anal sex is good yes yes o yay

    10. Re:Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We predict weather pretty damn well. Climate evidence is convincing. We can't predict earthquakes worth a shit. I recommend reading The Signal in the Noise, there's a great chapter on this.

    11. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well theyâ(TM)re not saying they can predict earthquakes - theyâ(TM)re saying they can predict one of many general trends in earthquakes.

    12. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      More to the point, since when in the fuck did we start predicting "periodic slowdowns in the Earth's rotation??" I smell unsubstantiated confusion, Guardian-style...

      It's worded poorly.

      The "periodic" part is the frequency at which they adjust the clocks to suit the Earth.

      The Earth always has been, and always will be slowing it's rotation as long as it has a star to orbit and a moon orbiting it. Stuff happening on and inside the Earth can change the rate of rotation slowing.

      I am skeptical that earthquakes have a periodic pattern tied to rotation, perhaps only as a secondary effect of geology changing (both earthquakes and rotation change due to tectonics.)

    13. Re:Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, there's isn't a filter for mentally ill idiots like you.

    14. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it can't really speed up or remain the same, so...

    15. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The earth's rotation has been slowing steadily all the time. Would that not mean a steady increase in quake activity?

      It would indeed. Now when you're done begging the question, check the initial statement you made. Has the world really been slowing "steadily"? Hint: The result of deviation against the SI day measurement has an upwards trend, but it also is a very wiggly graph.

    16. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Good point, not necessarily steadily but continuously.

    17. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote is "Alas, poor Yorick. I knew him Horatio."

    18. Re: Uhmm.... since when do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The Moon is receding from the Earth. Conservation of angular momentum requires that the Earth lose some rotational velocity when that happens.

  2. Biggest Earthquake Destroys Silicon Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dare to hope.

    1. Re:Biggest Earthquake Destroys Silicon Valley by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Here's hoping that somehow it swallows Apple's marketing staff whole, but leaves humans unaffected.

  3. Oh Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. I can expect next year to be filled with "Global Warming Causes Earthquakes!" stories. Yay.

    1. Re:Oh Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reddit is full of them (where I first read this story). I wonder if it causes increased heating also (that has to escape somewhere).

    2. Re:Oh Great... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      They are just evidence of the real and more serious underlying problem: "Global warming causes mass insanity"

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:Oh Great... by deviated_prevert · · Score: 2

      Great. I can expect next year to be filled with "Global Warming Causes Earthquakes!" stories. Yay.

      Here is one just to piss you off. As the loss of Greenland Ice cap accelerates in speed due to global warming and many millions of tonnes of ice quickly calve off into the Greenland Sea the reduction in weight of the ice cap over the land will result in upthrust and very large earth quakes and perhaps volcanoes where there have been few and few are known to exist. The same also applies to the continent of Antarctica as it loses the ice cap. So yes natural and man made global warming can cause seismic events in the long term it already has in recent history. As the ice cap melted off the top of North America the upthrust of the center of the continent did cause earth quakes and is still causing them to a less extent to this day.A sudden upthrust event in Greenland caused by the rapid loss of the ice cap may not happen soon but upthrust will occur and is scientifically predictable in the same way that other huge events like a Maunder Minimum of the sun are predictable.

      Farting huge quantities of gas and liquids into shale rock to bring up oil and gas also is know to cause local earth quakes but again we have those, particularly in offices who deny that this is what is happening. I am sure that they will also point to this paper and say it was the slowing of the earth that is causing the recent earth quakes around their oil and gas fields. The misuse of the information gleamed by scientists is nothing new, the shills working as scientists for the petro chemical industry, the tobacco industry, the farm chemical industry have been doing it for years and are quite effective in creating lies. I ask you this if man made global warming is a huge scientific lie why is the evidence of this occurance proving to be irrefutable? And more importantly what would the scientist stand to gain from faking or fudging the related climate and atmospheric data they are all seeing? Paid scientists have been known to fake and hide data regarding tobacco usage, pesticides and many other commercially golden man made products that have killed millions. Show me which industry with a vested interest in man made global warming or Geo-science is sponsoring these flawed findings or just STFU

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    4. Re:Oh Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tetchy.

    5. Re:Oh Great... by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      > and is scientifically predictable in the same way that other huge events like a Maunder Minimum of the sun are predictable.

      Or, indeed, the effects of increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    6. Re:Oh Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the way the water levels of the Great Lakes is appearing to change but what is happening is that the ground is slowly rising up since the glaciers from the last ice age receded and removed the extra weight that pressed them down?

  4. Re: Sound like more Global Warmingâï non by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To whomever is in charge of the infrastructure in the regions to be impacted. Wouldn't it be nice to spend money to mitigate the casualties instead of spending it on relief after the fact?

  5. #MAGMA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Scientists say the number of severe quakes is likely to rise strongly next year because of a periodic slowing of the Earth's rotation,"

    Thanks a lot, Trump.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:#MAGMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. That's one way to be president for more than four years, even without getting re-elected

    2. Re:#MAGMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A year is an orbit, not a rotation.

      Kill yourself.

    3. Re:#MAGMA by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      T is chubby, but not that chubby.

  6. Re: Sound like more Global Warmingâï non by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your parent clearly believes this is Fake Science. He wants to know who funded this study because he wants to identity the sinister globalists, anarcho-feminists, crypto-Marxists, SJWs, eco-terrorists or, I don't know... hipsters. Or something.

  7. Documentary about this by MrEdofCourse · · Score: 1

    "The theory goes that the slowdown creates a shift in the shape of the Earth's solid iron and nickel "inner core"

    There was a really great documentary about the Earth's core not only slowing down, but stopping altogether:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/combined/

    1. Re:Documentary about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I felt bad for the hacker dude who degaussed all his gear for no reason.

    2. Re:Documentary about this by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Your link is 404

    3. Re:Documentary about this by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Remove the `combined/`. Anyway that catastrophe movie seems to be a catastrophe.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:Documentary about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: Always check your links in preview before hitting submit. (Use the appropriate modifer keys to open the link in a new tab.)

    5. Re:Documentary about this by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      My favorite scene is the fast-forward building of Virgil.

      The worst scene is when he opens a panel and we see a protoboard with wires... I know they were in a hurry but there's 24-hours PCB shops in the USA.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  8. I Blame the Joggers by HtR · · Score: 5, Funny

    This earth rotation issue was never a problem back when I was a kid. I blame the rise in jogging, specifically those joggers who jog eastward. If the joggers would just get together and only jog westward, the problem would be solved!

    --
    Have you tried turning it off and on again?
    1. Re:I Blame the Joggers by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're joking, but it's a cycle, which reason is not fully understood yet. Earth deceleration is about 1.7 ms a century. That made the recent negative acceleration 15 times 'faster' than usual.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:I Blame the Joggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're joking, but it's a cycle, which reason is not fully understood yet. Earth deceleration is about 1.7 ms a century. That made the recent negative acceleration 15 times 'faster' than usual.

      It's wind and wave power, obviously, yet more man-made environmental issue, am I right?

    3. Re:I Blame the Joggers by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      That made the recent negative acceleration 15 times 'faster' than usual.

      It could be Three Gorges Dam filling up, moving 40 billion tonnes of water 200m further from the earth's center.

    4. Re:I Blame the Joggers by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Did you do the calculations for that ?

    5. Re: I Blame the Joggers by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You're joking, but it's a cycle, which reason is not fully understood yet.

      Obviously there's a gradual, incremental slowdown due to tidal forces... but any speculation about cycles is just that.

    6. Re:I Blame the Joggers by mersadweb · · Score: 1
    7. Re: I Blame the Joggers by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      It seems to be more likely due to the earth core cyclic moves and ... slowdowns.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:I Blame the Joggers by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      It might be the increase in rocket launches; but, it is hard to believe that is the cause. Tim S.

  9. Pulsating Core? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, is the mantle or the core pulsating due to gravitational effects or thermal circulation? It's a slightly dirty thought.

  10. The Charlatan Effect. by Templer421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just say crap and if it happens you can claim to be "Right."

    If it doesn't people tend to forget.

    No downside either you are either a genius or people forget what you said.

    1. Re:The Charlatan Effect. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I call this the Head Up Arse Effect. While scepticism is generally a good thing, we long ago reached the point where some people dismiss all science out of hand.

      Obviously since you posted such a detailed rebuttal of their claims this doesn't apply to you. I look forward to your paper refuting these jokers'.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:The Charlatan Effect. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Just say crap and if it happens you can claim to be "Right."

      I understand the Slashdot history of saying correlation != causation, but at what point did we become anti science enough to say "Yeah correlation but I don't believe you and THIS time it will be different!"

    3. Re:The Charlatan Effect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call this the Head Up Arse Effect. While scepticism is generally a good thing, we long ago reached the point where some people dismiss all science out of hand.

      Obviously since you posted such a detailed rebuttal of their claims this doesn't apply to you. I look forward to your paper refuting these jokers'.

      So, Are you skeptical at all, or do you just accept it because it was claimed by 'scientists'?

    4. Re:The Charlatan Effect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call this the Head Up Arse Effect. While scepticism is generally a good thing, we long ago reached the point where some people dismiss all science out of hand.

      Obviously since you posted such a detailed rebuttal of their claims this doesn't apply to you. I look forward to your paper refuting these jokers'.

      So, Are you skeptical at all, or do you just accept it because it was claimed by 'scientists'?

      It's AmiMoJo. He has a very long history of demanding robust evidence from others he does not like, and never doing the same himself.

      He argues "historical context" or misinterpretation when science doesn't say what he feels is right, providing no other reasoning or citations on his part. AmiMoJo declares or insinuates, as he has done here, that people are no-good in various guises and not to be trusted when they so much as point out an obvious flaw in science he does like.

      Hell, just look at the bulk posting he has done on the Google Memo stories this week for dozens of examples proving the behavior outlined above.

  11. Three Gorges Dam filling up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did you do the calculations for that ?

    At least NASA has done those, according to Business Insider.

    Effect from the dam filling to the rotation time seems to be just 0,06 microseconds.

    1. Re:Three Gorges Dam filling up by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Did you do the calculations for that ?

      At least NASA has done those, according to Business Insider.

      Effect from the dam filling to the rotation time seems to be just 0,06 microseconds.

      We've long suspected that dams could do this, simply because when you shift the weight of the water around the globe, it affects the way the globe spins on its axis. It's the same as how a figure skater can spin faster by holding her arms above her head.

      Natural variations in the earth's rotation occur regularly, due to ice melt patterns and such, but it would be ill-advised to discount anthropogenic additions to a poorly understood planet-wide ecosystem. Only a planet dominated by a species that was science-challenged would make that mistake.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Three Gorges Dam filling up by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Or, they could have it backwards. Earthquakes can change the earth's rotation. Maybe changes leading to an earthquake can as well.

      https://www.space.com/11115-ja...

    3. Re:Three Gorges Dam filling up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, special earthquakes go back in time 5 years and change the speed.

    4. Re:Three Gorges Dam filling up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big earthquakes (a couple in Chile, for instance) have been shown to affect the Earth's rotation slightly. But that's only been clearly seen for Really Big Ones (M8.5+) in subduction zones. Will be interesting to see if the correlation in the article works. And 5 years does seem to be a reasonable time for some rotation-related stress to propagate to where the weaker spots in the crust are.

      One thing not clear in the article is whether these changes appear on a schedule, or whether they're random. If the former, perhaps there's a way to better understand them. If the latter, at best, they give us a few years warning (as the article mentions) that more earthquakes are coming. But not, of course, where and when except in the vaguest of terms.

  12. Re:For the MAGA crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's the Republican tax scam. Er.. Plan!

  13. Mantle stickiness a factor by mattr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the kind of prediction you don't really want to be correct about. Would have liked to see some more technical explanation, but from a little googling I see there is a 32 year cycle of slowing which the scientists think might be due to mantle and crust sticking together more, which would also mess up the magnetic field a bit. I had no idea this was a thing. There are various other causes according to wikipedia apparently such as the Indian ocean earthquake which redistributed mass. So I wonder whether there would be any impact from water that melts from arctic ice. People living at the intersection of tectonic plates tend to think about this stuff.
    Two links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://qz.com/1133304/as-eart...

    1. Re:Mantle stickiness a factor by tquasar · · Score: 2

      Quakes are common, happen all the time. I live in south California and the last quake I felt was many years ago. There are quakes that cause a lot of damage but many are in areas with low population or where the damage isn't reported. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ea...

    2. Re:Mantle stickiness a factor by koomba · · Score: 1

      You're right in that isostatic rebound absolutely can cause earthquakes. One prominent example is the New Madrid earthquake that happened in the Memphis area on the US in the early 19th century. It was nowhere near any major fault lines, and is pretty much universally accepted to be a result of glacial rebound from the last ice age.

  14. Rotatio? by coofercat · · Score: 1

    slowing in the earth's rotatio

    Rotation ratio?
    Rotation potato?
    Rotisserie potato?

    A simple typo, and a good 5 minutes of day lost ;-)

    1. Re:Rotatio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Latin without funny characters. For some reason, Slashdot submitters have started using languages from the more civilized age.

  15. Re:Surprised they don't blame global warming by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Since that spectacular slowdown seems due to the earth core, it can hardly be linked to global warming, for a change.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  16. Re:Surprised they don't blame global warming by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

    Algore, and the thousands of climatologists that actually went to college, understand the science, and study that shit. But I'm sure you right-wing deniers who slept at a Holiday Inn know better...

  17. "Scientists say..." by Buck+Feta · · Score: 1

    Good choice of weasel words for non-peer-reviewed bullshit. Is this what /. has come to?

    --
    I am Audience.
  18. The Earth doesn't spin at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the sun can slow down.

    You space monkeys believe the Earth's rotation just moves up and down however it likes? You're just might be monkey!

    Space is fake. The Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.

    Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895
    Light of the corona and chromosphere can be observed on the back of the moon. Corona lines move faster than speed of light.
    Lunar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/92378881
    Shadow changes color?
    Next eclipse: January 30-31, 2018 North America

  19. Time to buy ocean front property in Idaho! by buzzsawddog · · Score: 1

    Time to buy ocean front property in Idaho!

  20. Updating Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They updated the predictions for 2018 because the ones for 2017 did not happen. In fact, most meteorological and geographical predictions are no more than Wild Ass Guesses and a desire to see one's ideas in print. Do not forget that New York and Florida were predicted to be under water by 2010, and last year was to have seen wild runaway inflation. If enough people predict enough things then by chance some will come to pass. Although in many alarmist news predictions dealing with climate, volcanoes and earthquakes, very few have come to pass. Kind of like the preachers who foretell the end of the world and then, when it did not end, confidently predict a future date again. In 40 million years they may eventually be correct.

  21. correlation, not causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More quake activity just after a *relative* slowdown in the past. There has just been a relative slowdown, somthere may more quakes.

    Causation and mechanisms are speculations.

  22. Re: speculation about cycles by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    You need to distinguish between the past and the future.

    The earth's rotation speed is precisely measurable (e.g. relative to distant stars/galaxies) and has been measured precisely for many decades. So regular slow-down, speed-up cycles in Earth's rotation speed in the past would not be speculated but rather measured.

    Speculating that such regular cycles will continue into the future would be speculation about cycles, based on either just simple induction or perhaps based on some hypothesis about wobbling iron core and how inertia, elasticity etc is likely to make those wobbles continue.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  23. I take it you're joking by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    About the rocket launches possibly causing it.

    If not, please please please try to get QUANTITATIVE ! Don't demonstrate innumeracy.

    Hint about how to do this:

    Numbers (e.g. about relative masses and movement amounts) do not go like this:

    1
    10
    100
    1,000
    1,000,000
    A shitload
    A metric f@ck-tonne

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  24. Quick google-search-based quantitative stab at it by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Mass of Earth: 5.972 x 10^24 kg
    Mass of molten mostly-iron core of Earth: 1.97 x 10^24 kg
    Say 1 millionth part of the core represents the net wobble in the core (total wild-ass guess)
    So wobbling core mass: 1.97 x 10^18 kg

    Mass of SpaceX Falcon 9 FT: 549,054 kg

    So number of rocket departures from Earth needed to be roughly, really roughly equivalent to effect on Earth's rotation of wobbly molten core

    2.97 x 10^18 / 549,054 =

    could be on the order of 3.59 x 10^12 (that is 3.59 trillion) rocket departures
    (give or take 3 orders of magnitude for shitty assumptions, but you get my general point?)

    Number of actual space rocket launches in 2017: 76

    So,.... no. It's not rockets, by a long shot (Ba dum Tss!)

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  25. Hurricanes anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the upsurge of Hurricanes we were supposed to see for the last 14 years due to the phony global warming nonsense. They didn't happen.