Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#131

Post by lazide »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #128
lazide wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals can do more to pick a better place to shelter than they can do to get everyone to stop making the problem worse, no?

There's always some excuse why we can't even talk about trying in earnest to solve it.

Are we talking in earnest? Because my complaint is we never do. Instead, like your prior comment, it’s either ‘well, as an individual you can do x’ (which doesn’t solve the actual problem in any real way, and hurts the individual) or ‘this problem doesn’t exist’.

I’ve been wanting to actually talk about actually solving the problem for decades. But get no takers.

And here, we’re even attacking people just trying to avoid getting run over by the steamroller we insist on not stopping.

It’s crazy.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#132

Post by DoreenMichele »

lazide wrote: post #131
DoreenMichele wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always some excuse why we can't even talk about trying in earnest to solve it.

Are we talking in earnest? Because my complaint is we never do. Instead, like your prior comment, it’s either ‘well, as an individual you can do x’ (which doesn’t solve the actual problem in any real way, and hurts the individual) or ‘this problem doesn’t exist’. I’ve been wanting to actually talk about actually solving the problem for decades. But get no takers. And here, we’re even attacking people just trying to a…

I'm an Environmental Resource Management major. I've recently learned that wetlands store more carbon than forests and we've lost more than 85 percent of them since the 1700s.

I posted an Ask HN looking for feedback on where to start trying to do the math and did not really get satisfactory replies. I am wondering if "the industrial revolution" is not really the primary cause of human caused climate change but perhaps largely coincidental. The math needs to get done to meaningfully examine that question.

I'm always wondering how one would foster substantial global wetlands restoration.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#133

Post by lazide »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #132
lazide wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we talking in earnest? Because my complaint is we never do. Instead, like your prior comment, it’s either ‘well, as an individual you can do x’ (which doesn’t solve the actual problem in any real way, and hurts the individual) or ‘this problem doesn’t exist’. I’ve been wanting to actually talk about actually solving the problem for decades. But get no takers. And here, we’re even attacking people just trying to a…

I'm an Environmental Resource Management major. I've recently learned that wetlands store more carbon than forests and we've lost more than 85 percent of them since the 1700s. I posted an Ask HN looking for feedback on where to start trying to do the math and did not really get satisfactory replies. I am wondering if "the industrial revolution" is not really the primary cause of human caused climate change but perhap…

There are probably a lot of factors. Pumping gigatons/year (literally) of previously geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere for a century+ is bound to have some effect. Removing sinks and reversing previous reservoirs also is going to have impacts. No question.

I wouldn’t discount measurable increases in global atmospheric co2 either way. And continuing to pump gigatons/yr of ‘new’ co2 into the atmosphere is so unlikely to help the situation, that I’d hesitate to try to downplay it.

The issue with wetlands and forests in this math is that both, generally, are like ‘capacitors’ - except in rare cases, their storage is temporary. It doesn’t (and can’t, if you do the math on volume of space available!) store large quantities of carbon permanently on a geological timeframe. Unless said wetland or forest gets subducted or buried anyway before it rots. If that’s happened though, it drying up isn’t likely to reverse that sequestration.

OPEC currently estimates approximately 70 million barrels of oil are extracted each year (coal far more I believe by volume). Each barrel is 42 gallons. That is just a hair under 3 billion gallons of oil alone. Or 11.3 million cubic meters of oil, per year. Nothing in comparison to the large rivers of the world, but enough to drown most any large city.

It would take a lot of lost wetland by volume to make up for that, especially when you look at cumulative effects over time. Even if the wetlands were pure carbon by volume (hydrocarbons aren’t, but are quite close for a dense liquid!), it isn’t clear there even is or has been that much wetland. That may give you a start though, for the math.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#134

Post by DoreenMichele »

lazide wrote: post #133
DoreenMichele wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an Environmental Resource Management major. I've recently learned that wetlands store more carbon than forests and we've lost more than 85 percent of them since the 1700s. I posted an Ask HN looking for feedback on where to start trying to do the math and did not really get satisfactory replies. I am wondering if "the industrial revolution" is not really the primary cause of human caused climate change but perhap…

There are probably a lot of factors. Pumping gigatons/year (literally) of previously geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere for a century+ is bound to have some effect. Removing sinks and reversing previous reservoirs also is going to have impacts. No question. I wouldn’t discount measurable increases in global atmospheric co2 either way. And continuing to pump gigatons/yr of ‘new’ co2 into the atmospher…

I'm not downplaying.

I'm looking for ways to run the numbers to validate a hypothesis that this is a really major factor and also beginning to research mitigation.

But I'm only one person. If I have to figure everything out with no help, this goes nowhere fast.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#135

Post by lazide »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #134
lazide wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are probably a lot of factors. Pumping gigatons/year (literally) of previously geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere for a century+ is bound to have some effect. Removing sinks and reversing previous reservoirs also is going to have impacts. No question. I wouldn’t discount measurable increases in global atmospheric co2 either way. And continuing to pump gigatons/yr of ‘new’ co2 into the atmospher…

I'm not downplaying. I'm looking for ways to run the numbers to validate a hypothesis that this is a really major factor and also beginning to research mitigation. But I'm only one person. If I have to figure everything out with no help, this goes nowhere fast.

Your comment - ‘“the industrial revolution" is not really the primary cause of human caused climate change but perhaps largely coincidental’ reads to me like downplaying it?

I added some math to my comment, hopefully it helps.

One way to estimate might be a simplistic, volume/density one. How much carbon is there in the applicable geography/land column? In a forest, it would be the trees themselves (above ground) + the soil. In a wetland, the vegetation + mud/sediment.

There should studies with core samples + samples of vegetation that can give good estimates. Then extrapolate. And you’ll have at least a rough estimate of the potential upper and lower bounds, assuming all that carbon instantly turned atmospheric (or at some assumed rate).

Combine that with numbers like I gave above (I’d do some googling for Coal numbers and add that too), and you should be able to estimate the maximum relative contribution of each source. We’re burning Coal in the billions of tons/yr quantities, and each short ton of coal produces well over a ton of co2 - so that is billions of tons/yr of co2 on its own.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#136

Post by jmcqk6 »

cossatot wrote: post #78

I wasn't involved in this study, but I wrote the study that estimated the magnitude of this earthquake[0]. In case anyone is interested, usually the magnitudes of 'paleoearthquakes' (historic/prehistoric earthquakes discovered by finding evidence of old ground deformation) are estimated by relating the measured offset of the earth's surface or a rock/dirt layer across the fault line to the earthquake magnitude throug…

To what extent do you think about micro-quakes are effecting the subduction system? I've heard that we see the land deforming, building tension from the subduction, but there is also a regular cadence where the land deformation reverses temporarily. When I heard about it (Nick Zentner popular lecture), it was suggested that it might be relieving the stress from subduction more evenly, and not allowing it to build up.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#137

Post by Arrath »

mannykannot wrote: post #115
tony_cannistra wrote: post #23

A particularly crazy thing I learned from some friends who I know who work in this field is that they use underwater hydraulic chainsaws (!) to sample some of these trees. https://www.stanleyinfrastructure.com/products/underwater-ch... The field work in general seems very wet for this kind of research. (my partner did lots of it for her graduate work)

Harvesting timber from trees submerged by the creation of reservoirs is a viable business, I believe, on account of rising prices, particularly for high-quality lumber that is becoming scarce.

It certainly can pay off. My dad was involved in a project removing old logging roads and in doing so they salvaged a lot of old growth timber that had been buried in swampy ground to make corduroy roads, beautiful straight grain, knot free wood. Buried as it was it was very well preserved, and he stockpiled some off to the side in our shed.

Now one piece adorns my parents new house as the lintel board above the fireplace, and its absolutely gorgeous. I think a some chunks were gifted to an acquaintance who builds guitars, and some more were given to a Salish descended carver.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#138

Post by bespokedevelopr »

karaterobot wrote: post #121
rnk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing I'm 10 miles east from that road of doom, I'm sure I'll be safe ;-).

I'm 10 blocks east, should be fine too. Even if the earthquake somehow gets a couple blocks past I-5 (can't see how that could happen) I'd still have 7-8 blocks as a safety cushion.

One issue though is all the Seattle hospitals are right along I5 so your house might be fine but it’s going to be a disaster for anyone who needs medical care.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#139

Post by supportengineer »

monknomo wrote: post #125
kalupa wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there's still plenty of much, much easier to access trees. The macro-economic effects of the wars, and covid, often causing gasoline prices increases (which is used a lot in forestry) that are still adding pressure to almost all commodity prices, including lumber

It's not "access to trees" so much as "access to large, old growth trees". The old ones with tight growth rings, large widths and long straight trunks are actually kinda rare these days. The farmed stuff is not the same, compare the growth ring per-inch

Old houses and barns.

Re: Multifault earthquake threat for Seattle region revealed by mass tree mortality

#140

Post by klardotsh »

doublerebel wrote: post #7

Everyone in the Seattle region is thinking about earthquakes since we just felt the 4.3 quake on Sunday! https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/small-...

Yeah, I'm in Kingston so felt that one plenty. It was a weird one: less rumble, more a sudden jolt that shook the floor. Really weird.
Post reply on HN