Raw video showing the earth's power during the recent Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami

In the rush to cover information about the nuclear meltdown disaster following Japans recent earthquake and Tsunami, it's easy to forget about the other disaster there. The vast and widespread devastation caused by the Tsunami, many fishing villages wiped away, etc. The 10+ thousands dead were from the Tsunami, not from the nuclear accident (those deaths remain in our future).

The video below was filmed by someone on top of a building next to a river in Japan. It shows in essence a reverse flood, where the ocean rose and became a flood. The devastation is amazing beginning first with cars tumbling around like toys, but as the water rose and rose buildings were knocked off their foundation and tossed around. A warehouse on the water was pushed off its foundation and shoved up against the building next to it, the building disintegrating and the contents (boxes) tumbling out into the water. Later another larger building eventually succumbed to the water and also fell off its foundation crumbling into the water.

As I wrote earlier (Higher Purpose: Japans earthquake and nuclear crisis asks us what we really want) -- "We" build stuff, towns and highways and nuclear plants, then the planet yawns and stretches and destroys those things. By having those things taken away from us, it presents an opportunity to take a step back and look from a broader perspective. Are those things we really want anyway? Is the cost of having those things greater than the benefit we get from them? Is there a better place to put those things than a spot that's prone to earthquakes?

External Media

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

Will the Japan earthquake trigger other earthquakes?

Yesterday a powerful earthquake struck Japan (8.9 on the Richtor Scale), the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded. It's causing some to revisit doom scenarios with strings of earthquakes causing massive earth changes and the pole shift. It would make some sense that shaking the planet in one place would cause weak places elsewhere to shake and trigger earthquakes elsewhere. But, just because something seems like it would make sense doesn't make it correct. So, let's take a look at what evidence exists about this question.

The first video below is an example of someone drawing together questionable evidence and coming to the conclusion of a looming major earthquake. The thing is she posted that video on March 9, and the earthquake occurred on March 11. I'm sure she's patting herself on the back about giving such a prescient warning, even though the information she gives has little credibility. She included a clip of physicist Michio Kaku predicting that "within our lifetime" one of a list of major cities (all of them on tectonic plates) will be destroyed. She took that as proof that "they" were giving "us" a veiled warning, but in truth that warning was akin to predicting the sun will rise in the morning.

Chile Earthquake Altered Earth Axis, Shortened Day and NASA Details Earthquake Effects on the Earth describe some details to the effects massive earthquakes have had on the earths axis, and on the rate of rotation of the planet. The articles are concerned with the large earthquake in Chile last year, and another large earthquake in Indonesia in 2005. In both cases the earthquakes were strong enough to reduce the length of the day and change the axis of the planet.

Ah.. okay, one could suppose that with a more massive earthquake that the axis of the planet could change enough to induce a pole shift. Maybe. Depends on what mechanism it is that causes pole shift. The shifting of the poles was discovered (so far as I know) in the 1950's by scientists taking core samples across the ocean floors. They found bands of the earths crust had different magnetic orientation, giving evidence that the north pole had not always been at the north pole, but sometimes is at the south pole. I recently found a video by a scientist talking about variations in the magnetic field: Tracking Variations in the Earth's Magnetic Field

Increase in Microearthquakes in California Found After Chilean Quake reports that "By studying seismographs from the earthquake that hit Chile last February, earth scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have found a statistically significant increase of microearthquakes in central California in the first few hours after the main shock. The observation provides an additional support that seismic waves from distant earthquakes could also trigger seismic events on the other side of Earth." The website helpfully listed out a few related articles: Big Earthquakes Spark Jolts Worldwide, Large Earthquakes Trigger A Surge In Volcanic Eruptions, and San Andreas Affected By 2004 Sumatran Quake; Largest Quakes Can Weaken Fault Zones Worldwide

Japan Earthquake Triggered Volcano Eruption In Russia? covers a report that perhaps maybe possibly the Japan earthquake has triggered a volcano eruption in Russia.

Another concern is whether geothermal drilling or hydraulic fracturing can cause earthquakes. How Does Geothermal Drilling Trigger Earthquakes? Goes over evidence from a mine in Switzerland (which was shut down after it triggered earthquakes) and a mine in the Geysers area of Northern California that's routinely triggering small earthquakes. The method discussed is pumping water underground into rock that's been heated by magma intrusions (e.g. from "failed volcanos"), the water is heated by the hot rocks, becomes steam, and drives a turbine to generate electricity. Geothermal power is one of the cleaner ways to generate electricity. At some installations they fracture the underground rock and the human induced activity "changes the stress field" underground, causing a change in the rate of earthquakes.

It turns out there is a lot of scientific evidence suggesting large earthquakes can trigger other earthquakes, or even volcanos. The next question is whether the fault zone I live in (the famous San Andreas fault is just a couple miles from me) is likely to be triggered by the Japan earthquake.

Fortunately the US Geological Survey runs a nice website showing earthquake data in real time. It indicates there are small earthquakes occurring in California, but that's normal. What stands out on the earthquake map is it looks very quiet with fewer earthquakes than normal. The articles referenced earlier indicate there can be triggering of small earthquakes elsewhere. And sure enough there are a few 1-2 scale earthquakes which have happened. But it doesn't look like an abnormal rate of them, and they've occurred in the most likely places. For example near Mammoth Lakes, in the Geysers area, and in the mountains south of Gilroy.

External Media

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

Peak Oil and a Changing Climate - A Video series from The Nation magazine

The scientific community has long agreed that our dependence on fossil fuels inflicts massive damage on the environment and our health, while warming the globe in the process. But beyond the damage these fuels cause to us now, what will happen when the world's supply of oil runs out? In a new video series from The Nation magazine and On The Earth Productions, Bill McKibben, Noam Chomsky, Nicole Foss, Richard Heinberg and other scientists, researchers and writers explain.

Visit TheNation.com for more videos in this series.

Richard Heinberg: Peak Oil and the Globe's Limitations

Richard Heinberg, senior fellow with the Post Carbon Institute and the author of The Party's Over, Peak Everything and, most recently, Blackout, discusses the phenomenon of peak oil and how it will affect life on this planet.

Nicole Foss: We Need Freedom of Action To Confront Peak Oil

In the third video in the series "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate" from The Nation and On The Earth productions, co-editor of The Automatic Earth, Nicole M. Foss, explains how energy relates to the economy and what our impending energy crisis will look like. Foss discusses the issues associated with peak oil in financial rather than environmental terms, because she finds that peak oil has much more to do with finance than it does with climate change.

Foss talks about what she calls a "false positive feedback loop," which involves optimism leading to "caution being thrown to the wind." When this happens, Foss believes that people become angry. Succumbing to fear and anger might lead to engagement in destructive behavior, which would make it harder for society to confront peak oil and climate change.

Reacting to former vice president Dick Cheney, who once said "the American way of life is not negotiable," Foss says, "That's true because reality is not going to negotiate with you."

For more videos in the series, visit TheNation.com.

James Howard Kunstler: Peak Oil and Our Financial Decline

In this fourth video in the series "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate" from The Nation magazine and On The Earth Productions, James Howard Kunstler discusses how finance and energy are running neck and neck to fuel the end of advanced industrial civilization.

Dmitry Orlov: Peak Oil Lessons From The Soviet Union

Dmitry Orlov, engineer and author, warns that the US's reliance on diminishing fuel supplies might be sending it down the same path the Soviet Union took before it collapsed.

In this fifth video in the series "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate" from The Nation and On The Earth Productions, Orlov, who was an eyewitness to the collapse of the Soviet Union, asserts that run-away debt and national bankruptcy will lead the US to its demise, just as it did for Moscow. As oil becomes more expensive and scarcer, the US will no longer be able to finance its importation and the economy will hit a wall, he says.

"Sixty percent of all of our transportation fuels are imported—a lot of that is on credit. A large chunk of the trade deficit is actually in transportation fuels. When those stop arriving because of our inability to borrow more money, then the economy is at a standstill," he says.

Visit thenation.com to learn more about "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate," and to see the other videos in the series.

Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a 'Liberal Hoax'

In this sixth video in the series "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate" from The Nation and On The Earth Productions, linguist, philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky talks about the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and other business lobbies enthusiastically carrying out campaigns "to try and convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax." According to Chomsky, this massive public relations campaign has succeeded in leading a good portion of the population into doubting the human causes of global warming.

Known for his criticism of the media, Chomsky doesn't hold back in this clip, laying blame on mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, which will run frontpage articles on what meteorologists think about global warming. "Meteorologists are pretty faces reading scripts telling you whether it's going to rain tomorrow," Chomsky says. "What do they have to say any more than your barber?" All this is part of the media's pursuit of "fabled objectivity."

Of particular concern for Chomsky is the atmosphere of anger, fear and hostility that currently reigns in America. The public's hatred of Democrats, Republicans, big business and banks and the public's distrust of scientists all lead to general disregard for the findings of "pointy-headed elitists." The 2010 elections could be interpreted as a "death knell for the species" because most of the new Republicans in Congress are global warming deniers. "If this was happening in some small country," Chomsky concludes, "it wouldn't matter much. But when it's happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world, it's a danger to the survival of the species."

Visit TheNation.com to learn more about "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate," and to see the other videos in the series.

Julia Butterfly Hill "Pro" - rather than being "Anti-"

"Julia Butterfly Hill is known for climbing a 1,000 year-old redwood tree in 1997 when she was 23 years old, and remaining there without touching the ground for two years, as part of a successful effort to call worldwide attention to the destruction of California's ancient redwoods. Since then, she has addressed the U.N., lobbied Congress, and continued to stand on the front lines of environmental and social justice issues all over the world. She is the author of The Legacy of Luna: The Story of a Tree, a Woman and the Struggle to Save the Redwoods and One Makes the Difference: Inspiring Actions That Change Our World."

Article Reference: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzabaYqS-O4

extvideo: 

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

About Fallout, two vintage atomic weapon films

Our universe was formed by nuclear reactions and radiation from those nuclear reactions. Where are these nuclear reactions? In stars like our own Sun. All the heavy elements were created through nuclear fusion in stars.

In the 1940's humanity developed nuclear weapons. Only the latest in the horrifying methods we humans develop to kill each other. In the 1950's and 1960's many films were made to explain nuclear weapons, and this is one of them. Two versions were made, one in the 1955 the other in 1963. It attempts to explain the "fallout" from nuclear weapons weapon explosions so that we may survive nuclear war.

Looking back at this it's rather curious how the films try to minimize the effects nuclear war. The films give lots of useful information, giving valuable warning, but portrays it as a survivable thing.

External Media

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

The volcano eruption interferes with airplane travel demonstrating part of our future

On March 20, 2010 and then on April 14, the Eyjafjallajokull Volcano in Iceland erupted. This led to widespread disruption of air travel in Europe from 15 April, grounding planes and affecting the travel plans of millions of passengers worldwide. What I'm finding interesting isn't the direct effect this eruption has put on airlines and airline travelers, but what it demonstrates about our future as oil supplies tighten.

The eruption's aftermath affected travel around the world, with air space across more than 20 European countries remaining largely closed until April 20. The volcano erupts on a very long time scale, with the last eruption lasting (on and off) for over a year between 1821 and 1823. Since previous eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull have been followed by eruptions at its larger neighbour, Katla, there is some concern for a larger eruption to occur very soon. The Icelandic Meteorological Office published a study last December pointing to a rise in seismic activity that obviously was a precursor to this eruption.

The news is full of reports of economic trouble being faced by airlines, and by the inconvenience to travelers. The airlines problem is that, being unable to conduct flights, they cannot earn revenue, while at the same time they're spending money just from airplane ownership and other operations. As a result there are calls for an airline bailout. And of course the traveler inconvenience makes for heart wrenching stories with people struggling to find a way to get home from their holiday trip.

What this demonstrates is the clinging to the way things are. The situation is a disruption of normalcy, and the stories are entirely about the effort to return to normal. The airlines are returning back to business as usual, and the travelers are breathing a sigh of relief that normal travel routines will resume.

This specific instance is obviously a temporary disruption. Well, "temporary" in this case is determined by the length of the eruption and the actual effect of the airborn ash on airplanes. Air travel was grounded because of policies stemming from experience that turbine powered jet airplanes, when exposed to silicate ash from volcanoes, experience engine failure which would tend to cause an airplane crash. In any case, as a temporary disruption it isn't worth much pondering except for the discussion over better determination of the how much ash it takes to actually ground all air travel.

What I think it demonstrates though is the future when rising oil prices, due to depletion of oil production, will be a long term disruption of airlines functioning as business entities. One reason airplanes have become the dominant form of world travel, and global airplane travel has caused globalization, is due to the cheap oil that's fueled this great orgy of high energy living.

As oil prices rise (due to peak oil) airline travel will be less affordable causing a decline in travel. When that occurs airline companies will be facing a similar financial problem to the one they face today, declining revenue and a fleet of expensive airplanes on the tarmac demanding maintenance, insurance, and other costs. Unlike today, in that future it won't be a temporary disruption, the supply of oil based fuels will simply rise, and rise, and rise even more, with no end in sight.

Today's struggle to return to normalcy will seem like a minor blip in a couple months. It demonstrates that the airline executives and travelers will struggle for normalcy before giving up on airline travel. It demonstrates that in our future there will be an oil price shock that drives the airlines out of business, and there will be worldwide denial over the issue, and a worldwide struggle to return to the normalcy we experience today.

Links: 

Ash Turns Routine Flights Into Overland Odysseys

Links: 

2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull

Links: 

Airlines Urge State Aid After Industry Chaos

Links: 

In Ash’s Wake, E.U. to Hasten Plan to Merge Airspace

Are humans, simply by existing, destroying the planet?

On TWiE Episode 13. Engineering a miracle my fellow electric vehicle online journalist (Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield) had an interesting thing she said. That simply by existing humans are destroying the environment. No matter what we do to minimize our impact on the environment, no matter how green we are, we're destroying the planet.

While I grok and agree with what she's going after, there's something this is missing. And the thing she's missing has in it an interesting bit of teaching that I've been pondering.

Much as we seem to hate to admit it, we are animals. Human beings are animals. We aren't plants, we aren't fungus, we're animals. It doesn't matter how smart we think we are, nor does it matter how distanced from our animal nature we get due to the our animal nature. We are animals.

Every animal and heck every plant modifies its environment.

As such humans do modify our environment. It's rather obvious that we modify our environment. We humans build buildings, houses, roads, parking lots, airports, etc. All those things modify the environment around us. Other modifications are various chemicals from all the metals and everything we build and use. There is a huge long list of things humans do to modify our environment.

While all animals (and plants) modify their environment, there is a huge difference between the modification done by humans or by other animals. Our ability to harness energy resources act as an amplification to human activity. A single human acting on their own using their hands probably can't do any more environment modification than any other animals. Give a tool to a human, give them a powered tool, give them a car, put them in an airplane, etc, and the amount of dama..er..modification they can do increases dramatically. Give a phalanx of construction engineers the backhoes and jack hammers and concrete mixers etc, and pretty soon you have a highway or a building.

It seems to me that if human beings had kept to non-powered hand tools the damage (modification) we do to our environment would have remained just as minimal as other animals. But we had to go and develop technology, develop oil refining techniques, and develop these huge planet crushing machines.

Taking my tongue out of my mouth ... Sure those planet crushing machines also act to give us the comfortable homes and highways we live among. The benefit however comes at a cost, and that cost is huge dramatic modifications to the environment.

Our fellow human beings may be acting under the delusion that the pitiful puny efforts of humans cannot possibly make any lasting damage to the planet. To an extent dramatic planetary effects like earthquakes (such as yesterdays 8.8 magnitude one in Chile) or hurricanes do demonstrate that the planet is much bigger than us puny humans, even when we equip all 6 billion of us with planet crushing machines. The pattern however is that human ingenuity continually acts to learn new ways to harness energy resources for ever-increasing magnification of our impact on our little planet. Eventually (if it hasn't already happened) this pattern will result in humans literally able to crush planets.

That is, unless humanity learns that there are better ways to live. An idea I took away from watching the recent movie Avatar is that if humanity were to be traveling among the stars (as shown in the movie) that we would be like a horde of ravening locusts swarming over planets stripping them of their resources. Just think how modern businesses act today, and amplify it a million times more.