Was the 2010 Haiti Earthquake triggered by deforestation and the 2008 hurricanes?
Major earthquakes occur when the stress on rocks between two tectonic plates reaches a critical breaking point, allowing the earth to move along the connecting fault. While the slow creep of the tectonic plates makes earthquakes inevitable along major faults, the timing and exact location of the quake epicenter can be influenced by outside forces pushing down on Earth's crust. For example, the sloshing of water into the Eastern Pacific during El Niño events has been linked to magnitude 4, 5, and 6 earthquakes on the seafloor below, due to the extra weight of water caused by local sea level rise. Sea level rise due to rapid melting of Earth's ice sheets could also potentially trigger earthquakes, though it is unknown at what melting rate such an effect might become significant.
Figure 1. Google Earth image of Haiti taken November 8, 2010, showing the capital of Port-Au-Prince and the mountainous region to its west where the epicenter of the 2010 earthquake was. Note the brown color of the mountains, where all the vegetation has been stripped off, leaving bare slopes subject to extreme erosion. Heavy rains in recent years have washed huge amounts of sediment into the Leogane Delta to the north.
Figure 2. Zoom-in view of the Leogane Delta region of Figure 1, showing the large expansion in the Delta's area between 2002 and 2010. High amounts of sediments have been eroded from Haiti's deforested mountains and deposited in the Delta. Recent expansion of the river channel due to runoff from Hurricane Tomas' rains is apparent in the 2010 image. Image credit: Google Earth, Digital Globe, GeoEye.
At last week's American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting last week in San Francisco, Shimon Wdowinsky of the University of Miami proposed a different method whereby unusual strains on the crust might trigger an earthquake. In a talk titled, Triggering of the 2010 Haiti earthquake by hurricanes and possibly deforestation , Wdowinsky studied the stresses on Earth's crust over the epicenter of the mighty January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake that killed over 200,000 people. This quake was centered in a mountainous area of southwest Haiti that has undergone severe deforestation—over 98% of the trees have been felled on the mountain in recent decades, allowing extreme erosion to occur during Haiti's frequent heavy rainfall events. Since 1975, the erosion rate in these mountains has been 6 mm/year, compared to the typical erosion rate of less than 1 mm/yr in forested tropical mountains. Satellite imagery (Figure 2) reveals that the eroded material has built up significantly in the Leogane Delta to the north of the earthquake's epicenter. In the 2008 hurricane season, four storms--Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike--dumped heavy rains on the impoverished nation. The bare, rugged hillsides let flood waters rampage into large areas of the country, killing over 1,000, destroying 22,702 homes, and damaging another 84,625. About 800,000 people were affected--8% of Haiti's total population. The flood wiped out 70% of Haiti's crops, resulting in dozens of deaths of children due to malnutrition in the months following the storms. Damage was estimated at over $1 billion, the costliest natural disaster in Haitian history. The damage amounted to over 5% of the country's $17 billion GDP, a staggering blow for a nation so poor. Tragically, the hurricanes of 2008 may have set up Haiti for an ever larger disaster. Wdowinsky computed that the amount of mass eroded away from the mountains over the epicenter of the 2010 earthquake was sufficient to cause crustal strains capable of causing a vertically-oriented slippage along a previously unknown fault. This type of motion is quite unusual in this region, as most quakes in Haiti tend to be of the strike-slip variety, where the tectonic plates slide horizontally past each other. The fact that the 2010 Haiti quake occurred along a vertically moving fault lends support to the idea that the slippage was triggered due to mass stripped off the mountains by erosion over the epicenter, combined with the extra weight of the extra sediment deposited in the Leogane Delta clamping down on the northern portion of the fault. Wdowinsky gave two other examples in Taiwan where earthquakes followed several months after the passage of tropical cyclones that dumped heavy rains over mountainous regions. His theory of tropical cyclone-triggered quakes deserves consideration, and provides another excellent reason to curb excessive deforestation!
Figure 3. Two of 2008's four tropical cyclones that ravaged Haiti: Tropical Storm Hanna (right) and Hurricane Gustav (left). Image taken at 10:40 am EDT September 1, 2008. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.
Christmas in Haiti
Portlight.org will brighten the lives of hundreds of kids in Haiti this week, thanks to their successful Christmas in Haiti fundraiser. Portlight raised $1800 to buy toys, candies, and other assorted goodies. The shipment left Charleston last week, and will arrive in time for Christmas. Thanks to everyone who helped support this worthy effort!
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 — Blog Index
I know, keep watch though {-:
Miraculously, the skies cleared and the view is awesome! It's a dark orange here.
Uptown NOLA
Captureview Binocular Cam
...earlier,halfway there.
Yeah, noticed that too. I believe the experts were predicting a relatively bright eclipse this time.
Huh? Going green would actually be the opposite of everything you just said: less products, less economic control, less products, less etc.. It is just quality of life over quantity of material.
ONE THING IS CERTAIN, LAST WEEK OF
THE YEAR IS GOING TO BE COLD.
Good Morning, Very nice veiwing of the moon last night
A 1009 MB LOW PRESSURE CENTER IS NEAR 12N57W...ABOUT 140 NM
TO THE EAST-SOUTHEAST OF BARBADOS. A SURFACE TROUGH EXTENDS
FROM 13N38W TO 13N50W...CURVING TO THE LOW CENTER...TO 8N60W
NEAR THE COASTS OF VENEZUELA AND NORTHERN GUYANA. RAINSHOWERS
ARE WITHIN A 30 NM RADIUS OF 12N58W. OTHER DISORGANIZED
ISOLATED TO WIDELY SCATTERED MODERATE RAINSHOWERS AND POSSIBLE
THUNDERSTORMS ARE FROM 10N TO 17N BETWEEN 48W AND 55W.
DISORGANIZED ISOLATED MODERATE RAINSHOWERS ARE ALSO FROM 10N
TO 16N BETWEEN 36W AND 47W. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS SYSTEM
MAY BECOME A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.THIS SYSTEM WILL BRING LOCALLY HEAVY RAINFALL AND GUSTY WINDS
TO MUCH OF THE LESSER ANTILLES DURING THE NEXT DAY OR SO EVEN
IF IT NEVER DEVELOPS INTO A TROPICAL CYCLONE.
But it has turned extratropical already.
The sky was crystal, and the eclipse was awesome as they always are.
Still wonder how you can call a temp a "record high" when it MATCHES the old record.
TX Anson Mon, 20 Dec 2010
New "record": 76
Old record: 76 in 1978
AL, 95, 2010122112, 130N, 588W, 20, 1008, LO
"...Thanks to the cold snap in the east, over the past week record lows/low maximums in the CONUS have outnumbered record highs/high minimums by 1253 to 693, or about 1.8 to 1..."
Kinda makes one wonder what the score would be if all the ties were taken out of the mix.
I come walking into work Hopped onto the computer and found 95L in the atlantic IN THE WEEK OF CHRISTMAS
That's how it's done. Note that I didn't say "new record"; I just said "there were X number of records" (though at times I have used the somewhat redundant phrase "there were X number of records set or tied").
Look at it this way: if someone runs the mile in 3:40:45 one week, and then you run it in 3:40:45 a week later, have you not run the mile in record time? Of course; your time would go down in the books as a record, whether you were first or not.
FWIW, more of the record lows/low maximums over the past week have merely tied old existing records; should I discount them, as well? Of course not; a record is a record is a record...
GFS showing some deep cold air coldest of the season building and drifting south to ring in the new year
Gotta love the tropics, lol.
Morning All.
As long as both sides (high/low) are treated equally, yes. Call them as they are: they TIED an existing record.
In your analogy of the race times, both times would go in the books, but honestly listed "on this date, X tied the currently existing record of 3:40:45, held by Z".
WTPN51 PGTW 211000
WARNING ATCP MIL 01C NEP 101221100435
2010122106 01C OMEKA 005 01 025 18 SATL 060
T000 254N 1737W 035 R034 050 NE QD 050 SE QD 040 SW QD 000 NW QD
T012 285N 1726W 035 R034 050 NE QD 050 SE QD 050 SW QD 000 NW QD
T024 318N 1718W 035 R034 050 NE QD 050 SE QD 050 SW QD 000 NW QD
T036 341N 1690W 030
AMP 000HR BECOMING EXTRATROPICAL
012HR EXTRATROPICAL
024HR EXTRATROPICAL
036HR EXTRATROPICAL
NNNN
SUBJ: TROPICAL STORM 01C (OMEKA) WARNING NR 006
1. TROPICAL STORM 01C (OMEKA) WARNING NR 006
01 ACTIVE TROPICAL CYCLONE IN EASTPAC
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS BASED ON ONE-MINUTE AVERAGE
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
---
WARNING POSITION:
210600Z --- NEAR 25.4N 173.7W
MOVEMENT PAST SIX HOURS - 025 DEGREES AT 18 KTS
POSITION ACCURATE TO WITHIN 060 NM
POSITION BASED ON CENTER LOCATED BY SATELLITE
PRESENT WIND DISTRIBUTION:
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 035 KT, GUSTS 045 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
BECOMING EXTRATROPICAL
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 050 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
040 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
000 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
REPEAT POSIT: 25.4N 173.7W
---
FORECASTS:
12 HRS, VALID AT:
211800Z --- 28.5N 172.6W
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 035 KT, GUSTS 045 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
EXTRATROPICAL
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 050 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
000 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 24 HR POSIT: 010 DEG/ 17 KTS
---
24 HRS, VALID AT:
220600Z --- 31.8N 171.8W
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 035 KT, GUSTS 045 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
EXTRATROPICAL
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 050 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
050 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
000 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 36 HR POSIT: 045 DEG/ 16 KTS
---
36 HRS, VALID AT:
221800Z --- 34.1N 169.0W
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 030 KT, GUSTS 040 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
EXTRATROPICAL
---
REMARKS:
211000Z POSITION NEAR 26.4N 173.3W.
//
BT
#0001
NNNN
0110121712 264N1777W 30
0110121718 250N1780W 30
0110121800 242N1785W 30
0110121806 238N1786W 30
0110121812 236N1787W 30
0110121818 230N1798W 30
0110121900 222N1794E 30
0110121906 216N1791E 30
0110121912 201N1799W 30
0110121918 201N1798W 30
0110122000 202N1794W 45
0110122006 206N1784W 45
0110122012 210N1773W 45
0110122018 224N1761W 35
0110122100 238N1746W 35
0110122106 254N1737W 35
A. REMNANTS OF TROPICAL STORM 01C (OMEKA)
B. 21/1130Z
C. 27.1N
D. 171.1W
E. FOUR/GOES11
F. XT2.0/2.5/W0.5/24HRS STT: D0.5/06HRS
G. IR/EIR
H. REMARKS: 13A/PBO TIGHTLY CURVED BAND/BANDING EYE/ANMTN. THIS
WILL BE THE FINAL FIX ISSUED BY JTWC ON THIS AREA. THE AREA
WILL CONTINUE TO BE MONITORED FOR POSSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT.
I. ADDITIONAL POSITIONS: NONE
HATHAWAY
It all depends on the agenda of the person reporting the event.
To exaggerate a certain bias, they report the event as a record and, conveniently, omit the truth that it, as you said in a follow-up post, 'tied the record' not exceeded it. Its called tap dancing.
Or, they do the right thing and tell the truth up front. That is why 'honest' reports make sure to mention that the temp record was originally set in some time period earlier as opposed to insinuating it was the original, first time ever, record.
It appears that we have a long way to go in order to get the bias out of our information network.
Until then...trust but verify.
I realize you and a few other others may be accusing HAMweather--and the NWS--of hanky-panky with the numbers to help them perpetuate the "scam" of global warming, but, seriously, as I said a bit ago: a record is a record, whether a new one is set or an old one is tied. If someone's asking what's the warmest Anson, Texas, has ever been on December 20th, the answer is 76, period. So far as weather records go, it doesn't matter much whether that's happened once before, or twice, or a dozen times, or a hundred: the record high for that date in that location is 76. That's not a biased answer; that's not an agenda-driven response. It is, simply, fact.
(It's a different story, of course, where climate is concerned; that deals with long-term patterns, such as the increasingly lopsided ratio of record warm days to record cold days when looked at on a year-to-year or decade-to-decade basis, yet another sign that the planet is warming overall.)
There you go again :D Quoting from the handbook for oil company employees :D Where can I buy this handbook for Teeple (Tar sheep people :D)??
Can I get it for kindle or is this new revised 2010 edition of how to deny global warming for oil company profit available on amazon???
I would like to read it because it sounds like new info :D I am always interested in new stuff :D Teeple in the church of oil hehe :D
you do precisely that which you think you're fighting against... talking points, no facts, conspiracy theories. a denier refuses to accept information that counters their own position. a herd follows a master.... who's your master? why do you refuse to accept information, yet at the same time provide absolutely no countering information from any source whatsoever.... i'm going to keep poking at you until you come up with some supporting evidence and actually expose the thinness of your carelessness. the responsibility is yours to prove that the scientific community at large is responsible for making up figures to get money. you haven't proven, or even remotely shown that, not once. you only claim opinions and command people take you at your lonesome word. i'm just playing your game here... see how easy it is. i just type what i think, and poke at you and your falseness. you do no different, and as long as you engage in that methodology, you will garner nothing from the endeavor other than to make yourself look stupid and excite others who share your narrow conspiratorial belief system that all the science are lies and money is at the heart of this whole debate.
i needn't make a single entry using any information to counter you, first, because you provide zero information, and second, because there is a wealth of it provided in this very forum about the state of our climate, no matter how many times you point the finger at the credential bearing, hard working, rigorously scientific community, lambasting them with false accusations of corruption. and no, Al Gore is not a scientist nor in this equation whatsoever.
Oh wow.
There's a new version of the AGW Talking Points booklet out!!! That was quick.
If you really believe that the petroleum companies aren't feverishly working behind the scenes to tap into the AGW craze, you really are ill-informed.
Go to Amazon and look for a book about how and why people invest their money and you will see that investors go where they believe the money well be. With all the AGW hype talking about taking from the middle class to pay for AGW, investors are clamoring for an opportunity to cash in on it, even petroleum companies and other energy companies as well.
It would appear that you are one of the AGW lemmings and that is truly sad for you.
Can you say 'heat dome' for the record high minimums? Albuquerque, for one, is now consistently several degrees warmer that surrounding small towns in the morning. That didn't used to be the case. Many mornings we have the warmest reading in the entire state-at 5000 plus feet. And we are high desert.
hehe :D Teeple keep going hehe :D :D The new teeple handbook is topping the sales charts :D :D
I am so sorry you have got lemminged into denial :D:D:D
AGW is a money based fraud. Get over it.
AGW is a hypothesis. As such , it is your obligation to prove that it is correct. Using computer simulations will not suffice, except among fellow AGW lemmings.
A simulation is not the same as true experimental proof.
Computer simulations are not dependable because the underlying code was written by a human and humans are fallible. Not to mention that computer simulations are structured to emulate the data presented. That is not the way science works.
In the real world data is collected and then analyzed. A hypothesis is formed and over time as the data is further gathered and experiments are performed, (ever hear of blind testing), to verify the hypothesis, at some point it may become a theory.
Weather data, according to the folks at East Anglia is proprietary as well as the computer simulations.
They admit to altering the data.
There is no protocol for placement of the data gathering devices.
There is no protocol for verification of the placement.
There is no protocol to insure the continuing accuracy of the instrumentation.
There is no protocol to insure that the individuals, charged with implementing such a nonexistent protocol, are properly trained and certified to perform such duties.
For all anyone knows all of the data is false. There is no way to prove otherwise.
Want to change that?
Demand complete and open access to the information as well as the computer assumptions and programs so that others can perform their own error checking on the data and programs.
For now, since they collectively assert that such information is proprietary, there is no way to verify anything.
And AGW is, in truth, unproven.
Except to AGW lemmings.
Remember, it is not my responsibility to disprove your hypothesis.
You must prove it with real life experiments and not computer simulation which are replete with human bias.
The responsibility is all yours and you are doing a pitifully poor job.
Huh? How can asking if a temp recorded is a new high or a tie with an EXISTING high be construed as a accusation that HAMweather or the NWS is cooking the books?
It's a QUESTION - what constitutes a record high?
"...but, seriously, as I said a bit ago: a record is a record, whether a new one is set or an old one is tied. If someone's asking what's the warmest Anson, Texas, has ever been on December 20th, the answer is 76, period..."
Agreed. The record for that day is 76. No problem there. It was originally set in 1976, and tied in 2010.
"...So far as weather records go, it doesn't matter much whether that's happened once before, or twice, or a dozen times, or a hundred: the record high for that date in that location is 76. That's not a biased answer; that's not an agenda-driven response. It is, simply, fact..."
Agreed, it's a fact that the existing record was tied in 2010.
"...(It's a different story, of course, where climate is concerned; that deals with long-term patterns, such as the increasingly lopsided ratio of record warm days to record cold days when looked at on a year-to-year or decade-to-decade basis, yet another sign that the planet is warming overall.).."
And there's the problem - using those tied records to build on the "increasingly lopsided ratio" of record highs to record lows, just to "prove" the planet is warming overall.
We know the planet has warmed. No arguement there. I mean, it's gone up a whole .6 - .8 degrees in the past century or so, right?
Viewing: 501 - 551
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 — Blog Index