Here at FP, we've frequently highlighted bogus arguments made by climate-change skeptics, but environmentalists are certainly also capable of faulty logic and specious conclusions. In a new column for CNN, Alan Weisman, author of the bestselling The World Without Us, tries to infer a connection between climate change and the recent high-profile volanic eruption and earthquakes:   

The denser that gaseous barrier grows, the hotter things get and the faster glaciers melt. As they flow off the land, we are warned, seas rise. Yet something else is lately worrying geologists: the likelihood that the Earth's crust, relieved of so much formidable weight of ice borne for many thousands of years, has begun to stretch and rebound.

As it does, a volcano awakens in Iceland (with another, larger and adjacent to still-erupting Eyjafjallajokull, threatening to detonate next). The Earth shudders in Haiti. Then Chile. Then western China. Mexicali-Calexico. The Solomon Islands. Spain. New Guinea. And those are just the big ones, 6+ on the Richter scale, and just in 2010. And it's only April.

It's looking like this may be a long decade. And if we don't pull carbon out of the way we energize our lives soon, a small clump of our not-too-distant surviving descendants may find themselves, as Gaia scientist James Lovelock has direly predicted, like the first Icelanders: gathered on some near-barren hunk of rock near one of the still-habitable poles, trying yet anew to eke out a plan for human civilization.

I don't know if scientsts really are worried about this -- a link there might have been nice -- but as the geologists I spoke to for this week's FP Explainer patiently explained to me, there's really nothing unusual about the recent level of geological activity:

2010 is actually shaping up to be a perfectly average year for quakes. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, since 1900 the Earth has experienced an average of 16 major quakes -- magnitude 7.0 or higher -- per year. In the first four months of 2010, there have been six. So though this will likely be a worse year than 1986, when there were only six major quakes total, it's unlikely to be as bad as 1943, when there were 32.

The recent high fatalities are not the result of more frequent or stronger quakes, but because we're building larger urban areas in fault zones -- and in the case of Haiti, not particularly well-constructed ones.

As for Iceland, as Weisman himself notes, it sits right on top of the mid-Atlantic ridge and volcanic eruptions are hardly unusual there. If prevailing winds hadn't pushed the ash cloud toward Europe, disrupting jet flights, the recent eruption would probably have barely been covered in the U.S. media.

While I'm ulimately more sympathetic to Weisman's worldview than Pat Robertson's or Rush Limbaugh's, blaming standard geological activity on Earth "striking back" makes about as much sense as blaming it on a voodoo curse or God's opposition to health-care reform. 

EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:ENVIRONMENT
 

LUIS SANCHO

10:18 AM ET

April 24, 2010

Man-made earthquakes.

The present surge in earthquake activity might be antropic. 2010 is statistically the highest year on record on earthquakes for all categories, except for the man-made surge during II world war carpet bombing. If we consider only the statistics for April it is an all time record. But what has humanity done this April 2010, to create fluctuations in the gravitational and magnetic fields of the earth responsible for magma motions that cause earthquakes? Very simply: we have switched on what is today the strongest gravitomagnetic field on this planet, the Large Hadron Collider. This machine that could latter in the decade at higher energy/mass produce strangelets (Pb-pb collisions) and black holes (over 10 Tev collisions), is today the strongest gravitomagnetic field on Earth.
There are 3 possible ways in which the LHC can cause earthquakes:
A)If it made black holes or strangelets that are now in the center of the Earth, slowly eating the planet.
B) If the magnetic field interacts with other magnetic fields in the magma.
C) If it produces gravitational waves. This might be the most likely cause:
According to Einstein it should be producing gravitational waves that provoke mass displacements in the magma, cause of Earthquakes. 2 types of gravitational waves take place: perpendicular affecting the antipodes (Australia and similar islands) and parallel, affecting the borders of the Eurasian plate (Iceland volcano, etc.) those are the top spots for earthquakes. Many people are dying; and if the machine produces latter in the decade black holes or strangelets, all people might die. A cautionary stop of that machine and serious studies on its effects are long overdue.
www.cerntruth.com

 

ZT

10:50 AM ET

April 25, 2010

lol

I can decide which is more absurd: This or the Global Warming -> Volcanoes theory. If CERN had put black holes or strangelets at the center of the planet, they'd destroy us in a matter of seconds, not cause earthquakes, so that obviously hasn't happened. And it obviously won't, because much higher-energy collisions happen all the time above the earth, and hawking radiation would destroy any black holes that small anyway.

The magma in the earth ways trillions of tons, and is composed of a relativly small percentage of magnetic material. (iron is only plentiful near the core.) There's no way the amount of energy used in CERN, even if 100% were converted into a magnetic field, could even come close.

As for gravitational waves: Accourding to Einstein? He died way before CERN was created. Cite some science, don't just drop a name. Again, the amount of energy used in CERN is nothing when you compare it to the total mass of the earth or the amount of energy already moving around in convection currents. Not to mention, if there were such a thing as a graviational "wave" it would have been observed by now, especially if they were eminating from a single location with enough force to do damage.

And as for glaciers and warming: Again, the mass of melting ice is nothing compared to the weight of the planet.

 

DAVIDLULU

12:38 PM ET

April 24, 2010

Whatever anyone said that

Whatever anyone said that 2010 is one average year for quakes, I don't think so, from our feeling, 2010 definitely is higher than average year. David, racing games club.

 

SCOTTM2009

8:41 PM ET

April 26, 2010

Feelings... Oh oh oh feelings...

"...from our feeling, 2010 definitely is higher than average year."

Yes, there it is - "feeling". You "feel" that 2010 has more quakes. Very scientific and persuasive. No need to actually COUNT the number of quakes in other years - we can all just "feel" whether 2010 is normal or not.

 

OLIVIA1002

2:41 AM ET

April 26, 2010

Debt Advice and Support

This action proof to be a win, win situation. This is a true art
work, which will be a success story.

Olivia
......................................................

Debt Advice and Support

 

XINYEKEJI

2:41 AM ET

April 26, 2010

that doesn't choose tiffany

that doesn't choose tiffany earrings rings on sale sale tiffany daughter Lourdes Leon,It's inspired by kids she sees in hip-hop and choose tiffany pendants classes

 

POOLSHARK

2:00 PM ET

April 27, 2010

Earthquakes

You forgot about promiscuous women

 

VANDERVOORT

6:22 AM ET

May 6, 2010

I've been pretty awe struck

I've been pretty awe struck by the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes just in the first half of 2010. Find it hard to believe that it's just an average year. Vander, online printing reviews expo.

 

NOUREDDINE

10:49 AM ET

May 16, 2010

I've been pretty awe struck

I've been pretty awe struck by the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes just in the first half of 2010. Find it hard to believe that it's just an average year. Vander, online printing reviews expo.
???????

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More