« Previous | Main | Next »

Is Solar activity to blame for Japan's massive earthquake?

Paul Hudson | 11:27 UK time, Friday, 11 March 2011

The massive earthquake that affected Japan this morning is one of the strongest in recorded history at 8.9 on the Richter scale.

With a number of powerful earthquakes recently it once again begs the question, is there a link between seismic activity and solar activity?

Recently we have witnessed a very unusual, prolonged period of low solar activity. Solar activity though has increased sharply in recent weeks.

Only yesterday I noticed that the number of recorded sunspots (a crude measure of solar activity) was in excess of 100 - compared with 6 months ago when the number of sunspots was zero.

In March last year a preliminary study was published from the Space and Science research centre in Florida.

A review of historical records was performed for 350 years of global volcanic activity (1650-2009) and seismic (earthquake) activity for the past 300 years (1700 to 2009) within the continental United States and then compared to the Sun's record of sunspots as a measure of solar activity.

According to this study, there exists a strong correlation between solar activity and the Earth's largest seismic and volcanic events.

They found an impressive degree of correlation for global volcanic activity (>80.6%) and for the largest USA earthquakes (100% of the top 7 most powerful) versus solar activity lows.

According to another study, published in Earth and Planetary Science letters, solar activity, as indicated by sunspots, radio noise and geomagnetic indices, plays a significant but by no means exclusive role in the triggering of earthquakes, with maximum quake frequency occurring at times of moderately high and fluctuating solar activity - which is what we have seen in the last few weeks.

Piers Corbyn, at Weather action, added last month following the New Zealand earthquake that within such long quieter solar periods like we have been through, the biggest earthquake & volcano events are triggered by extra solar activity, particularly during the the rising phase of even solar cycles.

This is precisely where we are now as Solar cycle 24 gains in strength. He also claims that solar activity strongly influences climate patterns too.

According to Mr Corbyn, 'The (New Zealand) event follows the world wide increase in volcanism and earthquakes in the last year or two and confirms the general statistical fact that more - and more serious - earthquakes, and volcanic activity, tend to occur around solar cycle minima'.

He reckons there will be more strong earthquakes like the ones we have recently witnessed in the next 2 years.

This is another one of those frustrating areas of science. There does seem to be empirical evidence to show a link between periods of low solar activity, and increased occurrences of earthquakes, but quite why this is so is not fully understood.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 12:01pm on 11 Mar 2011, nibor25 wrote:

    Or Supermoon? 19th March so a few days early.

    Our thoughts should go out the people affected by this natural disaster - some of the footage with cars and people trying to flee the Tsunami are extremely disturbing.

    Once again Nature demonstrates which one of us is really in charge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 12:15pm on 11 Mar 2011, Hudsonfan wrote:

    Once again proof if any further proof were needed that nature is the force that rules our world. The idiots who claim that by reducing CO2s we can change the climate may as well try and stop earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. We can do nothing to stop any of these events and to waste money trying to do so when it could be better used mitigating the effects of these catastrophes and irrigating Africa.Dieter Helm,professor of energy policy at Oxford University has said that offshore wind is one of the most expensive "short term" ways you can conceive of to reduce CO2 emissions.He argues that now the world is awash with natural gas it would cost £5 to £7 billion to replace 4 to 5 gigawatts of coal burning generation. For a similar wind farm capacity it would cost £100billion!!!!

    Lets get on with it abandon the nonsense of wind farms...its urgent!

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 12:37pm on 11 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    I am personally sceptical about the existence of a causal link between solar activity and seismic activity on Earth.
    However, I think there may a possibility that the forces which control solar activity may be the same as those which control seismic activity, i.e. gravitational field influences within the solar system.
    On the other hand, if I understand it correctly, the suggestion seems to be that low solar activity correlates with high seismic activity, which is a puzzle.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 1:43pm on 11 Mar 2011, jake wrote:

    When were you going to inform us of this important info paul,march 15th. just keeping us in the dark like the rest of media

    Greetings to All: A Brown Dwarf with 2.5 larger mass than Jupiter and multiple orbiting moons (pic) is right now (2/11) exactly between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars on an inbound trajectory from south of the ecliptic plane from the Leo Constellation heading for a tight turn around the sun on Mercury’s orbit line.ssd.jpl.nasa.gov

    Click on the link and click the arrows back and forth and watch Elenin/Planet X/Nibiru (more facts) entering the innermost parts of our solar system.

    March 4th, 2011 marks the day that the brown dwarf (info) breaks through the ecliptic plane into the northern hemisphere to begin influencing the earth into convulsions and severe spasms. Earthquake and volcanic activity will escalate from this time forward and increase like birthpangs where the earth groans and the oceans slosh tidal waves too and fro.


    March 15, 2011 is the first of three conjunctions where the earth is caught in the gravitational gradient lines-or the trough-that binds the sun and brown dwarf together. The sun will be pulling one way and the brown dwarf the other way and the predicted pole shift event will take place. The interesting thing about this particular day is that Saturn, the brown dwarf, the Earth and the Sun and Mars and Jupiter and Uranus are all in alignment. The astronomy people and the media should be talking about this alignment, because rarely do seven planetary and solar bodies line up in a straight line like we see on March 15, 2011.

    This gravity trough is going to be the mother of all where the planets are lined up for a game of Tug of War. The earth will be susceptible to the brown dwarf’s magnetism and flip over to match the giant’s polarity like a smaller magnet flips in space for a larger one . This is the reason why so many people are giving out warnings concerning the conjunction and pole shift on March 15, 2011. The magnetic poles are not shifting on their own at some near future time. They are being influenced and shifted gradually by the approach of Nibiru/Planet X. The Govt knows (FEMA preparing = US Govt Bunker Map) all of this and keeps people in the dark, because there is only so many spaces in their underground bunkers. The brown dwarf crosses the Mars orbit on June 30, 2011. Keep your eye on the earth and sun distances as we continue.

    August 3, 2011 marks the time that the earth passes through the brown dwarf perigee position, while the brown dwarf is crossing the earth orbit location. About two weeks pass and on August 18 the brown dwarf crosses the Venus orbit some 67 million miles form the sun. Then 24 days pass to the magical moment when the brown dwarf reaches the nearest point to the sun at 44.73 million miles. This right here is the reason that the Rothschild/Rockefeller Banksters (What Really Happened) and the Globalist New World Order Elites used Bush and company to plan and carry out the 9/11 inside job attacks on 9/11/2001 exactly ten years to the day. The banksters and their bought-and-paid-for corrupt politicians and lying media moguls are planning to hide themselves in underground bunkers all around the world and let the peasants fend for themselves.

    September 25, 2011 marks the time that the earth passes through the second conjunction with the sun, brown dwarf, Mercury, Saturn, the Sun and Uranus in line for another Tug of War. The sun, brown dwarf, Mercury and Saturn are pulling the earth towards the sun in an event that will bring the earth nearer to the sun than at any time in the last 3600 years. There are 14 days between the brown dwarf reaching perigee position and this conjunction with the earth and sun being equidistant to the dwarf on the 7th day. Look down in the lower left hand corner of the Sept. 25 diagram to see the brown dwarf is now nearer the earth than the sun at only 38 million miles.

    October 2 is the day that the brown dwarf crosses Venus’ orbit again to begin trekking in the direction of earth. Our planet is still being pulled towards the sun, but by this time we are also being pulled forward into the massive gravity well. Two weeks go by and the brown dwarf crossed the earth orbit line to pass directly in front of our planet at just 22.3 million miles away, which is the nearest point in our encounter. The brown dwarf crosses the Mars orbit line on November 14, 2011 on way to the third conjunction on November 22 where the earth passes directly between the two once again like on March 15. GL.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 1:47pm on 11 Mar 2011, lateintheday wrote:

    Some interesting astronomical views on this at Tallbloke's talkshop. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com.

    Both the moon and jupiter approaching perigree? Chap called Ken Ring is warning of another New Zealand quake in the next 10 days - apparently called the last one.
    I saw the 'supermoon' catastrophe scare being ridiculed by the experts only last week. May be just a coincidence but it's enough to raise at least one eyebrow.

    QV - they also have some stuff on solar predictions for this cycle. Much talk about an early (late2011/early 2012, low but prolonged solar max. This seems to be based on the reversal of magnetic fields on the sun which, when they cross, indicate the max is, or is about to occur.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 2:37pm on 11 Mar 2011, lateintheday wrote:

    Jake - are you having a laugh or what.

    Nibiru? from wikipedia
    The idea was first proposed in 1995 by Nancy Lieder, founder of the website ZetaTalk. Lieder describes herself as a contactee with the ability to receive messages from extra-terrestrials from the Zeta Reticuli star system through an implant in her brain.

    What can I say . . .
    Don't worry, I'm sure Superman will turn up and save the day.

    Moderators - I'm surprised you let this through.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 2:45pm on 11 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    4. - jake wrote:
    "Cick on the link and click the arrows back and forth and watch Elenin/Planet X/Nibiru (more facts) entering the innermost parts of our solar system."
    I can't see any links.


    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:32pm on 11 Mar 2011, Feetinthesnow wrote:

    OH! come on guys this is all due to CO2 isn't it??? Science is settled surely.

    I have been studying my accumulated data and just found a link between my savings account and Solar activity. I have desperately been trying to "hide the decline".

    Please delete this message after reading.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 6:40pm on 11 Mar 2011, NeilHamp wrote:

    Paul,
    You quote the NASA studies, but don't give us a reference
    Can you please provide references?

    I have crude and simplistic views on the correlation between solar mimima and earthqakes.

    If you accept that an extended solar minimum results in cooling.
    Cooling of the Earth should cause contraction
    It is not surprising that we are seeing earthquakes
    Also expect a big volcanoe eruption
    That cotraction must cause all that lava to be squeezed out somewhere

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 8:48pm on 11 Mar 2011, Vukcevic wrote:

    I think it may well be linked to a number of strong geomagnetic disturbances as a direct result of the solar flares, experienced in the last two -three weeks.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 08:23am on 12 Mar 2011, nibor25 wrote:

    Apparently it was C02 - And this is what Climate Change looks like. Nonsense but keep it coming because it does the cause more damage in my opinion.

    http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-11-todays-tsunami-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 08:49am on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    QV @ 3 - The solar effect is theoretically the ramping up of activity during a low solar cycle, so it it the rate of change that it is postulated causes extra effects on Earth. Couple this with a super moon event - coincidentally only in this case - and tectonic plates that are always in balance are given an extra nudge. If this is right expect a period of extra earthquakes and volcanoes during this solar cycle, which could occur anywhere at any time.
    Of course there are already nut jobs screaming "I told you so" and linking this disaster to climate change http://bit.ly/hozJEX. People like this really need locking up as they have obviously lost the plot, there is no significant land based ice loss that could explain the Japan earthquake, which is caused by subduction of the Pacific plate - and these people claim to be scientists for God's sake!
    Speaking of loonies, glad to see the escape plan worked Jake. Give him his due though, unlike climate loonies that say disaster is so far off many of us will not live to see it anyway, Jake gives us a time line we can all follow. We therefore either have a few months at most before events we can't control overtake us, in which case so long and thanks for all the fish, or another proponent of Planet X is shown to be a wild eyed whacko.
    For now though let's all worry about the unfolding NUCLEAR disaster in Japan - it appears an entire containment building has collapsed.
    Exciting year, eh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 08:59am on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    OK, pictures in of 1 reactor containment building at Fukushima exploding, and take a look at some of these facts from yesterday's events http://bit.ly/h6LUOl. Jake's knowing grin gets a little wider eh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 09:28am on 12 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #9. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "I have crude and simplistic views on the correlation between solar mimima and earthqakes.
    If you accept that an extended solar minimum results in cooling.
    Cooling of the Earth should cause contraction
    It is not surprising that we are seeing earthquakes
    Also expect a big volcanoe eruption
    That cotraction must cause all that lava to be squeezed out somewhere"
    Surely if there is any cooling due to solar activity, it is the Earth's atmosphere we are talking about, not the Earth itself?
    It seems unlikely that any cooling if the atmosphere would cause geological cooling.
    Apart from that, I thought there was a theory that "global warming" was causing seismic activity due to changes in the mass distribution of the oceans, i.e. melting ice causing oceans levels to rise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 09:30am on 12 Mar 2011, Spanglerboy wrote:

    @ Paul Hudson

    Paul you say "This is another one of those frustrating areas of science." Can we assume that one of the other areas of science you allude to would be climate science? There seems to be a big difference, however, in that in the field vulcanology (the study of Spock?) man's ignorance is not hidden from view. Unlike climate science where we have to blame CO2 because we can't come up with any other explanation.

    It is bad enough that we live in a world where natural disasters will always impact on human life. It is surely even worse that we have invented manmade global warming to create an even bigger disaster.

    Today our thoughts are with the people of Japan, but it is sobering to reflect that over time the carbon reduction policies of the EU will inflict substantially more harm on humankind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 09:35am on 12 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    There was a mention on BBC R4 "Today" programme of the possible link between the earthquake and the proximity of the Moon this morning and apparently they were inundated by denials by scientists. However that wouldn't convince the conspiracy theorists. As I understand it is not that the moon is approaching perigee, (after all it does that every approx. 27 days), but the fact that the perigee is closer than usual, which is the issue. However, I am sure I recall predictions of disaster caused by the alignment of the planets years ago, which came to nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 09:38am on 12 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    The explosion at the nuclear power plant in Japan would appear to be a setback to those who support nuclear power as a source of energy.
    This isn't just an issue in relation to earthquakes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 1:26pm on 12 Mar 2011, quake wrote:

    15. At 09:30am on 12 Mar 2011, Spanglerboy wrote:
    "Unlike climate science where we have to blame CO2 because we can't come up with any other explanation."

    Actually CO2 positively explains the temperature rise. That we can't come up with any other explanation is just a kind of icing on the cake.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 2:56pm on 12 Mar 2011, PingoSan wrote:

    Paul,

    There have been numerous articles recently about the moon perigee and how it could produce disaster. Indeed if you are skilled at Googling you will find one article released 3 minutes before the dreadful earthquake struck.

    But I still blame it on global warming. Head. In. The. Sand.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 3:31pm on 12 Mar 2011, lateintheday wrote:

    Neil Hamp @9
    I think Paul Hudson is referring to this - it's not a NASA report, it's a private company SSRC run by John Casey.
    This link will give you a flavour.
    tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/john-l-casey-the-solar-seismic-connection/

    I don't think you can regard this RC theory as mainstream but there are quite a few scientists working along similar lines of thought. The 'correlation does not prove causation' argument would apply here since as far as I know, the mechanism(s) for causation has not been clearly identified. Gravitational effects alone don't seem to stand up to the maths test but Vukcevic @10 is researching other possible mechanisms.
    It seems he picked up some 'weird' results when studying the Japan quake aftershocks and solar activity spikes (EM? )

    Any chance of an update Vuk - in laymans terms if possible?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 4:02pm on 12 Mar 2011, PingoSan wrote:

    "The explosion at the nuclear power plant in Japan would appear to be a setback to those who support nuclear power as a source of energy.
    This isn't just an issue in relation to earthquakes."

    No. It is contained. What you have just said is just what the human-hating BBC-ist want you to think. The release of steam was needed. It is irreconciable with the truth what you have claimed.

    Like they say, the lies are half way around the world before we get around to sorting them out.

    That a nuclear station has been able to withstand a 9 point Richter shake shows that we need to fuel our country with them right here right now.

    Only those who wants to have blackouts will dismiss this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 4:02pm on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    Quake (unfortunate handle) @ 18
    Current temperatures are well below Hansen's scenario C, which would have been if we had all met Kyoto and had half the economy running on renewables by now. Where exactly does that explain CO2 as a primary driver when in fact it has continued to go up more in line with Hansen's doomsday scenario A?
    Removal of CO2 leaves us with the most likely answer - we don't know! Perhaps we should get a dose of humility and admit we have a lot to learn about this planet?

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 4:04pm on 12 Mar 2011, PingoSan wrote:

    I expect Paul Briscoe to come along and claim something like global warming caused the tsunami. After all, nothing ever happened without global warming, eg snow, heat, rain, etc

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 4:12pm on 12 Mar 2011, Vukcevic wrote:

    Quote:
    There is strong evidence of electromagnetic processes responsible for earthquake triggering, that we study extensively. We will focus here on one correlation between power in solar wind compressional fluctuations and power in magnetospheric pulsations and ground H component fluctuations. The variation of the horizontal component H of the geomagnetic field is the crucial parameter in the Magneto-Seismic Effect MSE to be discussed in a companion paper. The connection of earthquake activity to possible solar or solar wind drivers is not well understood; many authors have attempted correlations in the past with mixed results.
    Geophysical Research Abstracts,Vol.8,01705, 2006;Lab for Solar and Space Physics, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,Greenbelt, MD
    http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01705/EGU06-J-01705.pdf

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 4:26pm on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    GPS system has apparently detected Japanese coast has moved 8 FEET after earthquake http://bit.ly/hWctnK. I presume their claim of an Earth axis move is also satellite based, but how the heck you measue a planet to 4 inches I can't imagine.
    Still, moving an entire country 8 feet probably required more energy than the human race has EVER produced since fors lighting a fire - humbling, eh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 4:29pm on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    ..... First lighting a fire - stupid fricken iPad predictive spelling :(

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 4:50pm on 12 Mar 2011, lateintheday wrote:

    Quake@18
    ''Actually CO2 positively explains the temperature rise. That we can't come up with any other explanation is just a kind of icing on the cake.''

    Nice turnaround - not a lawyer are you?
    I think it's pushing it to say that CO2 positively explains the temp rise. It seems to me that since the AGW theory was first postulated it has undergone several surgical procedures in order to maintain its position. Sticking plasters all over the place. Alternative explanations for the temp rise are constantly knocked down by the mainstream without even allowing access to the first aid kit.

    Clearly the research funding favours propping up AGW. This in itself is not surprising since it is the consensus view. What chance do our next generation graduates have other than to follow the mainstream? I asked my niece, a bright girl 17rs old what she thought of climate change. Her response was disheartening. She said that although she wasn't convinced by AGW, if the question came up on her A level exam, she would simply repeat what she had been taught for fear that any other answer would not be well marked.
    This closing down of alternative perspectives is endemic in our educational system. My own daughter took part in the end of year school musical which in song and dance proclaimed that mankind was killing planet earth and leaving nothing for future generations - I felt physically sick listening to such brainwashing garbage.

    Climate Science is on a steep learning curve - no scrap that, Climate Science is the new shoot on the branch. It is dependent upon all manner of other sciences. Paleoclimatology tells us that present warming is unprecedented. Fine, if you want to believe that you can reconstruct actual temps from 1000 yrs ago within tenths of a degree that's up to you.
    Ice cores, tree rings, sediments etc - these are great fields of study each with their own set of inbuilt uncertainties and many of which are relatively young as far as science goes. Take the recent glacial study which revealed that Ice sheets can build from the bottom up - mixing super cooled ancient water. This was described by the scientists as a complete surprise - fundamentally changing their understanding of glacial formation. Or how about dendronology? Well quite apart from Briffa's 'cherry' trees, what proof is there that the temperature inferred is anything more than a blunt measure of solar activity which in itself, is a driver and certainly does not tell the whole story.

    So is CO2 the driver of climate change? Maybe, maybe not - but definitely? Definitely not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 5:33pm on 12 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    27 - lateintheday wrote:
    "I asked my niece, a bright girl 17rs old what she thought of climate change. Her response was disheartening. She said that although she wasn't convinced by AGW, if the question came up on her A level exam, she would simply repeat what she had been taught for fear that any other answer would not be well marked."
    Surely an open minded examination system would ask the student to put the cases both for and against AGW? That way the student would be required to think about the science, rather than accept dogma.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 5:34pm on 12 Mar 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    Pingosan @ #23

    "I expect Paul Briscoe to come along and claim something like global warming caused the tsunami."

    How wrong you are!!

    I base what I say on the peer-reviewed literature and I am not aware of any that claims such a link. If I find any I'll let you know.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 5:45pm on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    27, 28
    I have come across exactly the same thing. Bright children, with serious strings of As under their belts, when talked to (rather than preached to) say that they are largely unconvinced by the evidence for AGW put to them in their courses. However they do not feel that expressing these views will help them maintain their grade average, and as a result are increasingly apathetic about science as they feel it does not stretch them. Basically they are being told instead of invited to think.
    This is destroying a future generation of scientists and is doing the same sort of damage to scientific advancement as the Spanish Inquisition and the Dark Ages, previous examples of dogma taking the upper hand in human development.
    I applaud your optimism, QV, but the children don't think they can take the initiative and risk going against the party line - you would think we were in China.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 5:46pm on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    Except of course the Chinese are basically AGW sceptical so their scientists are running ahead of us in everything ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 5:48pm on 12 Mar 2011, lateintheday wrote:

    QV@28
    open minded - yes that would be a refreshing change. I know a few school teachers who deplore the way 'league tables' have put pressure on them to teach purely for the exam. These are the accepted answers kids, just stick with these and you'll pass.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 5:49pm on 12 Mar 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    lateintheday @ #27

    "I think it's pushing it to say that CO2 positively explains the temp rise. It seems to me that since the AGW theory was first postulated it has undergone several surgical procedures in order to maintain its position. Sticking plasters all over the place. Alternative explanations for the temp rise are constantly knocked down by the mainstream without even allowing access to the first aid kit."

    I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. It actually took a long time for the scientific community to come around to the view that AGW is correct, mainly because for many years it was believed that the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 were already being fully absorbed by water vapour.

    To my knowledge, none of the scientists researching in the field now dispute the fact that CO2 causes warming. The main area of disagreement has been over the feedback effects of clouds. Yet if they were really as strongly negative as Spencer, Lindzen and Christy suggest, they would have acted against warming in the past. However, geologists have found strong evidence of past warming events and mass extinctions associated with sudden rises in CO2 - this simply couldn't have happened if clouds exerted a strong negative feedback.

    Might I suggest that you watch the following video, which covers a lot of important scientific literature relating to pre-history and adds yet another piece of the jigsaw:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=channel_video_title

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 6:41pm on 12 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #32 - lateintheday wrote:
    "open minded - yes that would be a refreshing change. I know a few school teachers who deplore the way 'league tables' have put pressure on them to teach purely for the exam. These are the accepted answers kids, just stick with these and you'll pass."
    I suppose the time to be independent of thought is AFTER you have passed your exams. I suppose it was ever thus. The only problem is that most scientists in the climate research field don't seem to have independent thoughts. I suppose it's "peer review group pressure".

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 7:34pm on 12 Mar 2011, lateintheday wrote:

    Nicely put QV.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 7:44pm on 12 Mar 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    QV @ #34

    "The only problem is that most scientists in the climate research field don't seem to have independent thoughts. I suppose it's "peer review group pressure"."

    Can you actually provide any REAL evidence to support this claim? ...... or isn't it rather that you don't see things the way that the majority of scientists do?

    After all, pretty well every major scientific body and academy around the World supports the science of AGW.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 7:59pm on 12 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #36 - Paul Briscoe wrote:
    "Can you actually provide any REAL evidence to support this claim? ...... or isn't it rather that you don't see things the way that the majority of scientists do?"
    No - but you can't deny that "group think" exists and is very difficult to fight against.
    "After all, pretty well every major scientific body and academy around the World supports the science of AGW."
    That isn't in question, but the reason they do so is.
    By the way, would the IPCC publish the results of a model which predicted a low level of warming? One which was contrary to all of the other models?


    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 8:17pm on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    Yet another example of "we've all been here before"

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/1947-enormous-warming-in-the-arctic-with-co2-will-below-350ppm/

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 8:45pm on 12 Mar 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    QV @ #36

    "No - but you can't deny that "group think" exists and is very difficult to fight against."

    On the contrary, I dismiss any claim of "group think" amongst climate scientists. What I do see, though, is a well organised denial movement which gives the IMPRESSION that there is a lot of doubt over the science, with the further implied criticism that the scientific community have closed their minds to alternative views.

    "That isn't in question, but the reason they do so is."

    Isn't it far more likely that the various scientific academies, which understand science a lot better than all of us here, can see the "big picture" as well as all of the flaws in the sceptic arguments?

    "By the way, would the IPCC publish the results of a model which predicted a low level of warming? One which was contrary to all of the other models?"

    The IPCC don't actually publish any scientific literature. They merely review the available scientific evidence. They do cover peer-reviewed literature which disagrees with the consensus view and when they do they clearly state why they do not agree with it.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 9:09pm on 12 Mar 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    millennia @ #38

    "Yet another example of "we've all been here before""

    Indeed!:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic_Temperature_Change.html

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 9:24pm on 12 Mar 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    millennia @ #22

    "Current temperatures are well below Hansen's scenario C, which would have been if we had all met Kyoto and had half the economy running on renewables by now. Where exactly does that explain CO2 as a primary driver when in fact it has continued to go up more in line with Hansen's doomsday scenario A?"

    Sorry, I missed this one and I see Quake hasn't yet been back to respond.

    There are actually 2 reasons why Hansen's projections proved too high. First of all, he overestimated the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, his "B" scenario came closest to actual increases in CO2.

    Second, his 1988 estimate of climate sensitivity is now believed to be too high. If he had used the same model with the actual CO2 increases we have seen since 1988 and the IPCC's central estimate of climate sensitivity from AR4 (2007), his projection would have been pretty well spot on:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-intermediate.htm

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 11:56pm on 12 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    We'll keep chipping away at that sensitivity as we learn more and confounding events like the rapid cool down from last year's El Nino have to be explained. As that sensitivity closes on or falls short of 2C for a doubling of CO2 we then have to ask just what are we spending so much on prevention for, because after sensitivity we then have to prove exactly what negative effects that temperature difference will have.
    As ever we don't know but act like we are experts, making multi billion dollar decisions on the basis of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 02:36am on 13 Mar 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #41, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    “ ….. There are actually 2 reasons why Hansen's projections proved too high. First of all, he overestimated the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, his "B" scenario came closest to actual increases in CO2. ….. “

    Actual CO2 emissions exceeded 'business as usual' scenario A so Hansen overestimated the effect that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have on atmospheric CO2.

    “ ….. Second, his 1988 estimate of climate sensitivity is now believed to be too high. If he had used the same model with the actual CO2 increases we have seen since 1988 and the IPCC's central estimate of climate sensitivity from AR4 (2007), his projection would have been pretty well spot on.. ….. “

    Climate sensitivity is the big question and, as you say, Hansen almost certainly overestimated it.

    Atmospheric effect of CO2 emissions overestimated and climate sensitivity overestimated thus, using the popular two wrongs make a right methodology, an accurate projection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 04:13am on 13 Mar 2011, quake wrote:

    43. At 02:36am on 13 Mar 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    "Actual CO2 emissions exceeded 'business as usual' scenario A so Hansen overestimated the effect that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have on atmospheric CO2."

    Both scenario A and B projected CO2 levels in the atmosphere to be about 390ppm in 2010. It's the total greenhouse gas forcing that is closer to scenario B than scenario A - including CFCs and methane. The one to compare with current temperatures is scenario B.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 08:36am on 13 Mar 2011, PingoSan wrote:

    Paul,

    " What I do see, though, is a well organised denial movement which gives the IMPRESSION that there is a lot of doubt over the science"

    Who is organising it?

    It is a fact that there is a lot of the doubt over the science, and the shenanigans of the Climategate scientists show that doubt to be well-placed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 08:58am on 13 Mar 2011, Paul Briscoe wrote:

    RobWansbeck @ #43

    "Actual CO2 emissions exceeded 'business as usual' scenario A so Hansen overestimated the effect that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have on atmospheric CO2."

    Apologies, Quake is correct. I had looked at this table before and still managed to get it wrong!:

    http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat

    Both scenarios A and B came very close to actual CO2 levels, but scenario A overestimated the amounts of other greenhouse gases. So scenario B is closest to reality in terms of total greenhouse gas forcing.

    "Atmospheric effect of CO2 emissions overestimated and climate sensitivity overestimated thus, using the popular two wrongs make a right methodology, an accurate projection."

    This is a misrepresentation and missing the point. What I am saying is that Hansen got his projection WRONG because he overestimated both the rate of greenhouse gas forcing and climate sensitivity. However, science progresses. With modern measures of climate sensitivity and actual greenhouse gas values, the same Hansen model would have achieved very good results indeed.

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 09:58am on 13 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    Reduced amounts of GHG and reduced sensitivity meets up with a constantly revised GISS temperature dataset and this makes Hansen's model valid now? Any model can be made to look good with a combination of hindcasting and data manipulation - just keep tweaking data or methodology until the fit looks good, and then do it again when once again the actual temperature doesn't behave as your agenda would want it to.

    Interesting that you say science progresses. Unfortunately we are already charting a course based on the "science is settled" mentality from years ago, and committing unknown amounts of money with no idea of the eventual outcome because, as ever, it had not been thought through before the politicians fired the starting pistol:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7375

    Anyway as usual we've drifted off topic for the blog thread, sorry if that was me set this off. Returning to topic (ish), anybody got any views on the 3 volcanic eruptions timed around the Japan quake?

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7374

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 11:18am on 13 Mar 2011, John Marshall wrote:

    The correlation between sun spots and earthquakes is a little tenuous I think. This earthquake occurred at a depth of 25km which is fairly shallow as quakes go and shallow quakes produce the most violent shaking. Vertical sea bed movements provided the energy for the tsunami and this did most damage as we have all seen to our horror.
    But back to this earthquake which was caused by movement of the subducting Pacific tectonic plate beneath the continental crust of Japan. Driven by forces we do not fully understand subduction has been in action on the planet for billions of years and is the way that continental crust is formed. This movement is very slow, mm per year, but is not smoothly acting. It suffers from 'stickion' so moves in fits and starts and it is this jerky movement that causes quakes.
    Anywhere can have earthquakes but it is subduction zones that cause the most violent to occur. These zones are also home to most of the worlds volcanoes Luckily the UK is many miles from the nearest which is near the west coast of Italy and the cause of the Italian volcanoes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 11:25am on 13 Mar 2011, John Marshall wrote:

    #47 millennia asks about the volcanic activity in Japan and the quake. The Japanese volcanoes currently erupting started some weeks ago. There is a connection because both are caused by the same subducting plate. Volcanoes form about 100km from the trench which is where the plates subduct.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 12:32pm on 13 Mar 2011, quake wrote:

    Re 47. At 09:58am on 13 Mar 2011, millennia wrote:

    "Reduced amounts of GHG and reduced sensitivity meets up with a constantly revised GISS temperature dataset and this makes Hansen's model valid now?"

    Hansen's prediction wasn't bang on. But his prediction was good - it was close. Only if temperature hadn't risen since 1988, or had only risen 0.1C, or had even cooled you would have a point.

    Scenario B was closer to what actually happened so we should be using that to compare with what actually happened with global temperature. That was the whole point of Hansen presenting three temperature projections. They are predictions conditional on what greenhouse gases do.

    Second Hansen's 1988 model sensitivity was 4.2C per doubling of CO2. The later model finds it about 3C per doubling. So the 1998 model should overestimate temperatures.

    You argue that such scientific progress contradicts "the science is settled", but really there's no qualitative difference between 3C warming from a doubling of CO2 and 4.2C.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 12:38pm on 13 Mar 2011, quake wrote:

    45. At 08:36am on 13 Mar 2011, PingoSan wrote:

    "It is a fact that there is a lot of the doubt over the science, and the shenanigans of the Climategate scientists show that doubt to be well-placed."

    A lot of the doubt is irrational. In lots of cases the science is formulated in such a way that it cannot have been manipulated (eg too many eyes), but people who don't understand the science don't realize that and go on have doubts in it anyway. The surface temperature record is a great example. This problem existed long before climategate, the only difference now is that 'climategate' is used as a vague excuse for the behavior.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 2:42pm on 13 Mar 2011, John Marshall wrote:

    Still people go on about 'greenhouse gasses'. They do not affect climate.
    It is about time some people got a sense of realism. The Japanese problem that we now see unfolding is due to a natural event over which we have no control. The same with climate-- we have no control over it in any way and especially by trying to limit the output of a trace atmospheric gas.
    Japan has real problems which we can only help mitigate,
    Forget climate change, global warming and CAGW. They are all nothing compared to Japan's problems, and in fact they are no problem at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 5:37pm on 13 Mar 2011, Chris wrote:

    The one thing this blog does is attract more than its fair share of cranks, trolls and deniers of one kind or another. Paul's posts are often interesting, the comments are often hilarious, with 'proof', 'proven', 'fact' and 'science' handed out like cheap toys at a fair. Keep it up guys - when the telly is boring I always know where to turn for a laugh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 9:35pm on 13 Mar 2011, OPatrick wrote:

    So John Marshall, your response to Corbyn's link between solar activity and massive earthquakes is that it's "a little tenuous", but you categorically state that greenhouse gases "do not affect climate" in the face of overwhelming evidence and simple physics. I'm with EYCris on this one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 08:56am on 14 Mar 2011, timawells wrote:

    Anybody who witenessed what happened in Japan, should be in no minds about the power of nature and how insignificant we are. Yes we have to deal with real polution, but Global warming isn't man made. And for all the people who want nuclear power, no matter what safety factors are put in place, there has to be more harmonius sustainable fuel out there, without the consequences.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 12:08pm on 14 Mar 2011, John Marshall wrote:

    #54 If OPatrick actually looked at the empirical evidence for AGW he would find that there is none. And the simple physics actually shows that the theory of GHG's is incorrect. If you alarmists take a few minutes to look for the scientific papers, all peer reviewed, that show that the alarmism is just that then perhaps you all would become as skeptic as scientists should be.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 2:42pm on 14 Mar 2011, john_cogger wrote:

    @56 John Marshal

    "And the simple physics actually shows that the theory of GHG's is incorrect."

    So what keeps the planet at the lovely temperature it is now? Where is this simple proof that 100+ years of science is wrong? Be really interested to see this simple physics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 3:31pm on 14 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    Deja Vu.
    Solar influence on earthquake activity, well being as we are in a solar minimum now and have just experienced a major earthquake, timed incidentally with a large CME,lets have a look at a previous solar minimum:

    http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/histor/15-19th-eme/1700/1700-eng.php

    At 9PM on January 26, 1700 one of the world's largest earthquakes occurred along the west coast of North America. The undersea Cascadia thrust fault ruptured along a 1000 km length, from mid Vancouver Island to northern California in a great earthquake, producing tremendous shaking and a huge tsunami that swept across the Pacific.

    Of course 1700 falling into the Maunder minimum. Coincidence?

    Another area of science that would benefit from some of the wasted funds allocated to turning an atmospheric gas essential to plant life into a pollutant.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 02:26am on 15 Mar 2011, PiersCorbyn wrote:

    Thanks for quoting me Paul,

    There is much to say so please see this video The Japan Nuke threat + Extreme Weather + Major Earthquakes + the Accountability Revolution - Piers Corbyn 14th March VIDEO http://bit.ly/gUOv7X (one of two videos)

    There are also other interesting videos about solar activity & Earthquakes from various sources via http://twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn

    THE PERIOD WE ARE IN IS VERY IMPORTANT in TERMS OF SUN-EARTH RELATIONS
    with Three 'Extra Top' Red Warning solar driven weather (and potentially Earthquake) periods 10-19th March with 'ETs' (Extra Top Red Warnings in terms of Solar-Lunar-Action-Technique drivers of effects on Earth). These are: 10/11th, 13/14th and 17/18th March.
    There is another probably even more important period - for EARTHQUAKES as well as weather 23/24th to 27th March
    Thanks,
    Piers

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 08:47am on 15 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #21 - PingoSan wrote:
    "No. It is contained. What you have just said is just what the human-hating BBC-ist want you to think. The release of steam was needed. It is irreconciable with the truth what you have claimed.
    That a nuclear station has been able to withstand a 9 point Richter shake shows that we need to fuel our country with them right here right now."
    Have you changed your mind yet?
    While I am basically a supporter of nuclear power, this must have changed the balance away from it's use.
    The situation is now clearly out of control, which suggests that the risks involved haven't been fully evaluated.
    It seems that building nuclear plants near fault zones is a mistake and if there are any more operating in the world near such zones, some consideration needs to be given to closing them down, at least temporarily, until the risks are understood.
    I heard the Sir John Beddington on the radio this morning talking about "reasonable worst case scenarios". What we need to consider are "unreasonable worst case scentarios".

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 09:53am on 15 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    The fact that the nuclear reactors withstood the force of a 9.0Mag earthquake is testament to the ageing design.
    If only the resultant height of the Tsunami had been predicted then the backup and backup-backup power sources for the plant would have been protected and the discussion on nuclear safety would not have been an issue. Lessons will be learnt and will prevail across all coastal sited plant to raise the backup supplies to a safer level.

    It may surprise people about the accident and fatality rate of wind farms described here at Caithness Windfarm Information Forum:
    http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm
    966 accidents and 73 fatalities.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 10:13am on 15 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    #61 ukpahonta wrote:
    "The fact that the nuclear reactors withstood the force of a 9.0Mag earthquake is testament to the ageing design."
    Your definition of "withstood" and my own, seem to be different.
    I wasn't aware that the Tsunami had affected the power plants.
    966 accidents and 67 fatalities over a period of 15 years.
    Out of context, it is impossible to tell if this makes wind power more dangerous than nuclear.
    There are many accidents involving all industustries every year, and that isn't an arguement for closing them down.
    The results of a nuclear accident is on an entirely different scale, as we may find out in due course.
    Please note, I am not putting forward the argument for wind power over nuclear, merely playing devil's advocate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 11:43am on 15 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    #62
    I use withstood to indicate that the central containment vessels are still containing, there was no breach due to the earthquake. The reports of the Tsunami taking out the backup supplies were from live SKY broadcasts. We shall have to wait for the official report to come out.

    Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA. There have been comparatively few fatalities associated with nuclear power plant accidents
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 1:05pm on 15 Mar 2011, john_cogger wrote:

    @63 ukpahonta

    It's hard to compare the stats as they might not use the same definitions of an accident or it's association to the industry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 1:21pm on 15 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    #64

    Totally agree, but in 57 years recorded deaths of less than a hundred does put the issue back into perspective as far as the "alarm-ism" goes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 2:43pm on 15 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    QV

    A very detailed site, worthy of attention:
    http://mitnse.com/

    The earthquake destroyed the external power supply of the nuclear reactor. This is a challenging accident for a nuclear power plant, and is referred to as a “loss of offsite power.” The reactor and its backup systems are designed to handle this type of accident by including backup power systems to keep the coolant pumps working. Furthermore, since the power plant had been shut down, it cannot produce any electricity by itself.

    For the first hour, the first set of multiple emergency diesel power generators started and provided the electricity that was needed. However, when the tsunami arrived (a very rare and larger than anticipated tsunami) it flooded the diesel generators, causing them to fail.

    One of the fundamental tenets of nuclear power plant design is “Defense in Depth.” This approach leads engineers to design a plant that can withstand severe catastrophes, even when several systems fail. A large tsunami that disables all the diesel generators at once is such a scenario, but the tsunami of March 11th was beyond all expectations. To mitigate such an event, engineers designed an extra line of defense by putting everything into the containment structure (see above), that is designed to contain everything inside the structure.

    When the diesel generators failed after the tsunami, the reactor operators switched to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backup systems to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did.

    After 8 hours, the batteries ran out, and the residual heat could not be carried away any more. At this point the plant operators begin to follow emergency procedures that are in place for a “loss of cooling event.” These are procedural steps following the “Depth in Defense” approach. All of this, however shocking it seems to us, is part of the day-to-day training you go through as an operator.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 08:14am on 16 Mar 2011, timawells wrote:

    I think there has to be safer alternatives to Nuclear power. If our government focused less on war and Global warming and more on making our country more sustainable and less dependent on the middle east. During the 1st and 2nd world war some great discoveries were made, because of the threat we were under, that mode of thinking needs to be focused on sustainability. Less on this H&S political correctness jargon. Each household should be creating their own power, as well as requiring power from the national grid. Our government has let us down badly, whether that be Conservative or Labour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 08:35am on 16 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    Japan currently faces a real emergency. As a result of the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, thousands of people are dead, and tens of thousands more are missing and may be trapped under rubble, severely injured, and in danger of death by thirst or suffocation. There are over 500,000 people without shelter, with a blizzard on the way, and even the as-yet unscathed could soon face death from epidemics caused by thousands of unburied corpses.

    At such a time, nothing could be more scandalous than the current campaign by much of the international press to spread panic over trivial emissions of radiological material from several disabled nuclear power stations.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262210/anti-nuclear-press-puts-japanese-lives-risk-robert-zubrin

    Where have we seen this before? Lets face the current crisis rather than a theoretical future problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 09:19am on 16 Mar 2011, timawells wrote:

    Ukpahonta. I can understand your concern for any survivors who may still be alive and in serious danger. But I think we also have to consider the longer term danger of Nuclear Power. There have to be better, cleaner and more sustainable fuel sources that we can use, that don't have the potential for disaster. Whether that be from natural, human error or terrorist type threats. On top of that one has to consider whether 120 million people living on a serious fault line should rebuild their community or move else where. If the 9.1 earth quake had hit Tokio directly, I dread to think of the consequences, no matter how well the buildings were constructed. I had considered emigrating to NewZealand, but I now have major concerns about that. The people spread around the Pacific ring of fire, especially San Fransisco should be concerned that they aren't going to be the next community to be hit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 09:45am on 16 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    'But I think we also have to consider the longer term danger of Nuclear Power'

    This is a reactor designed fifty years ago that has just been slapped by the 4th largest earthquake in recorded history and also a mega Tsunami. How much safer do you need it to be?

    Sue Ions, a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering deeply involved in nuclear decommissioning, says: ‘Rather than undermine public faith in nuclear energy, this incident should highlight its safety.

    ‘People should gain confidence that these plants have shut down as they should.’

    So far, only tiny quantities of radiation have leaked into the atmosphere.

    While thousands of Japanese people have died in the tsunami, there is still no evidence that anybody has been, or will be, killed by fallout.

    In a world dominated by headlines and TV images, we are extraordinarily bad at measuring risk sensibly before making vital decisions.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366274/Japan-tsunami-earthquake-Nuclear-power-plants-dangerous.html#ixzz1GkkKxA4z

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 11:38am on 16 Mar 2011, John Marshall wrote:

    #57 john_cogger. The other theory, which complies with the thermodynamics laws, is that of adiabatic heating due to compression. It is the reason for that lovely warm planet Venus. This planet has a very heavy atmosphere with its surface atmospheric pressure much higher than here which will cause the much higher temperatures.
    The combined gas laws will give the temperature changes with change in pressure. GHG warming is not needed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 1:54pm on 16 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    68 - ukpahonta
    "trivial emissions"?
    I suspect you might not consider them trivial if you lived nearby.
    #70. - ukpahonta wrote:
    'But I think we also have to consider the longer term danger of Nuclear Power'
    "How much safer do you need it to be?"
    I would suggest that building a single nuclear power stations near a fault zone is unwise. Building 4 sounds idiotic.
    ‘People should gain confidence that these plants have shut down as they should.’
    Really - that was the way it was supposed to happen? They were designed to go out of control and explode?
    "While thousands of Japanese people have died in the tsunami, there is still no evidence that anybody has been, or will be, killed by fallout."
    The tsunami was unavoidable, any fallout is not. Anyway, it is far too soon to come to any conclusions on how bad this is. I suspect that there is worse to come.





    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 3:11pm on 16 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    72- QV

    Right after the explosions there were spikes in the radiation levels detected, because there were some radioactive materials in the steam. When the zirconium alloy cladding reacted to make hydrogen, it released some fission products. The vast majority of the radioactive materials in the fuel will remain in the fuel. However, some of the fission products are noble gases (xenon, Xe and krypton, Kr) and will immediately leave the fuel rods when the cladding integrity is compromised. Fortunately, Xe and Kr are not a serious radiological hazard because they are chemically inert and will not react with humans or plants. Additionally, small quantities of iodine (I) and cesium (Cs) can be entrained with the steam. When the steam was vented to the reactor building, the Xe and Kr would have followed as well as some small amounts of I and Cs. Thus, when the roof of the reactor building was damaged , these radionuclides that were in the reactor building would have also been released. This is the reason a sudden spike was seen in radiation levels. These heightened radiation levels quickly decreased. This is because there was no damage to the containment which would increase the quantities of radionuclide released, and because the radionuclides released during the explosion quickly decayed away or dispersed.
    http://mitnse.com/2011/03/15/explanation-of-hydrogen-explosions-at-units-1-and-3/

    Yes I would consider them trivial if I lived nearby and I would also explain the source to avoid unwarranted panic and confusion.

    I would suggest that the fault zone was known prior to the building of the reactors and taken into consideration which is why there has not, as of present, been a major loss of life.

    The people of Japan were convinced of the safety even after the devastation of WW2 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki which makes the rest of your comment sound even more alarmist.

    'They were designed to go out of control and explode' please forgive me but hydrogen related explosions although spectacular to view are no where near the scale of a nuclear explosion to which you are inferring.

    The nuclear reactions are shut down, they are safe and have been for days. All speculation as to when Armageddon is going to happen will more than likely cause more panic and injury, even death, than any fallout from this event possibly could. The media are currently having a feeding frenzy and proving to be news instigators in some instances.



    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 3:38pm on 16 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    Too good an opportunity not to post this:

    Associated Professor David Wigg, who died last year, was director of Clinical Radiobiology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and in 2007 carefully explained the health risks of exposure to radiation.

    With the risks of sickness so low, the only explanation he could think of for the kind of wild hysteria we see now is “radiation phobia” - a condition more deadly that the thing which inspires it:

    If it is assumed that there are no threshold doses, estimates of the likely incidence of cancer in exposed populations will be extremely high when applied to large populations. Estimates of 50,000 or more deaths in the USA from minute doses from Chernobyl have been made. In reality the doses sustained by the USA population were well below threshold doses and the cancer risk was therefore negligible. Grossly exaggerated predictions like this are a major contributor to the exaggerated fear of radiation (radiation phobia) which is now so prevalent in the community. In the nuclear industry world-wide, before Chernobyl (1986), there were only 28 deaths from nontreatment related radiation injuries. These numbers are negligible compared with, for example, coal mining deaths.

    At Chernobyl there were 2 groups that received high doses of radiation. 28 workers died within four months as a consequence of very high doses received in the emergency
    clean-up procedures and 19 more subsequently died. Children, who are more sensitive to radiation, received high thyroid doses through concentration of radioactive iodine 131 (half life 8.0 days). By the year 2000 about 4,000 children had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer but only 9 deaths were attributed to radiation. Thyroid cancer is usually not fatal if diagnosed and treated early. There has been a total of 56 fatalities from Chernobyl as at 2004 .

    Apart from these high dose cases, large numbers received low doses from contamination of the environment by radioactive isotopes from Chernobyl but there has been no evidence of any increase in leukaemia or other cancers and no increase in hereditary diseases in this large population (2, p. 124).

    Unfortunately because of widespread radiation phobia there were an estimated 1250 suicides and between 100,000 and 200,000 elective abortions in Western Europe (2, p. 128). The great tragedy of Chernobyl was that so much harm was done – not by the effects of radiation - but by the irrational fear of it.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_people_die_of_fear_of_nuclear_power_than_of_the_power_itself/

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 3:46pm on 16 Mar 2011, quake wrote:

    Re 71. At 11:38am on 16 Mar 2011, John Marshall wrote:

    "#57 john_cogger. The other theory, which complies with the thermodynamics laws, is that of adiabatic heating due to compression. It is the reason for that lovely warm planet Venus."

    If Venus's greenhouse effect was turned off the planet would rapidly cool down and pressure would drop. High pressure on Venus is maintained by the high temperature, not the otherway round.

    Afterall if we fling Venus out into the outer reaches of the solar system it isn't going to stay hot because of pressure. If it worked like that we could compress gases to generate perpectual heat sources.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 08:53am on 18 Mar 2011, ukpahonta wrote:

    Repeal the Climate Change Act
    http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43914.html

    Signatures required to petition the PM.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 10:05am on 18 Mar 2011, nibor25 wrote:

    Peer review gets mentioned in many posts. I note with interest that the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology has launched an inquiry into peer review.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/17/uk-scitech-peer-review-enquiry/#more-2708

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 10:49am on 18 Mar 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    There was recently a news item on BBC R4, about one science Journal which had decided to give up "peer review", I think because it was outmoded and no longer reliable. Unfortunately I don't remember which Journal it was!

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.